What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4945744?

The tribunal order states: Magdalena Maria Johanna Oosthuizen to pay Deborah Anne Speden, Lee

How much money was awarded in case 4945744?

Cleaning: $470.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945744?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945744?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10781175-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4945744?

The tribunal order states: Magdalena Maria Johanna Oosthuizen to pay Deborah Anne Speden, Lee

How much money was awarded in case 4945744?

Cleaning: $470.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4945744?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4945744?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10781175-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

81 Dusky Street, Te Anau, Te Anau 9600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4945744 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4945744 — net $1,997.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$1,500.00	Insurance excess
Cleaning	$470.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,997.00
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,997.00

Magdalena Maria Johanna Oosthuizen to pay Deborah Anne Speden, Lee Celal Yasar and Rebecca fleur Kane $1,997.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6487922-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Deborah Anne Speden, Lee Celal Yasar and Rebecca fleur Kane: $1,997.00 Magdalena Maria Johanna Oosthuizen: $323.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The applicants were represented by Ms Kane who appeared via video conference.

The landlord had previously applied for termination and compensation and that order was made on 22 April 2024.

At that time the bond was not sought given the final inspection was required. This application comes before me today for the clean up costs.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant had a very short period of time to clean up the property and did carry out some cleaning however parts of the home required further cleaning.

I accept the cleaning was required and therefore the amounts ordered are proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy:

There were three claims for the insurance excess due to two claims for carpet damage and one for the walls in the kitchen.

The carpet had significant markings and also deep cuts from the tenant’s furniture. The damage was significant and requires repair. The insurance assessor and carpet expert were shocked at the damage made by the furniture. The tenant was warned and provided with carpet squares to put under the furniture, and this was not always used. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

In relation to the walls in the kitchen, the paint had been removed and appeared to be due to a cleaning product used on the walls. In any event they need to be repainted and again the insurance assessor has confirmed, and the claim has been accepted.

The amounts ordered are proven.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Because Deborah Anne Speden, Lee Celal Yasar, Rebecca fleur Kane has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4945744 — net $1,997.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$1,500.00	Insurance excess
Cleaning	$470.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,997.00
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,997.00

Order

Magdalena Maria Johanna Oosthuizen to pay Deborah Anne Speden, Lee Celal Yasar and Rebecca fleur Kane $1,997.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6487922-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Deborah Anne Speden, Lee Celal Yasar and Rebecca fleur Kane: $1,997.00 Magdalena Maria Johanna Oosthuizen: $323.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The applicants were represented by Ms Kane who appeared via video conference.
The landlord had previously applied for termination and compensation and that order was made on 22 April 2024.
At that time the bond was not sought given the final inspection was required. This application comes before me today for the clean up costs.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant had a very short period of time to clean up the property and did carry out some cleaning however parts of the home required further cleaning.
I accept the cleaning was required and therefore the amounts ordered are proven.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
There were three claims for the insurance excess due to two claims for carpet damage and one for the walls in the kitchen.
The carpet had significant markings and also deep cuts from the tenant’s furniture. The damage was significant and requires repair. The insurance assessor and carpet expert were shocked at the damage made by the furniture. The tenant was warned and provided with carpet squares to put under the furniture, and this was not always used. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In relation to the walls in the kitchen, the paint had been removed and appeared to be due to a cleaning product used on the walls. In any event they need to be repainted and again the insurance assessor has confirmed, and the claim has been accepted.
The amounts ordered are proven.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because Deborah Anne Speden, Lee Celal Yasar, Rebecca fleur Kane has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4945744 — Property damage at 81 Dusky Street, Te Anau, Te Anau 9600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4945744 — Property damage at 81 Dusky Street, Te Anau, Te Anau 9600

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions