What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4960734?

The tribunal order states: Megan Jeffries must pay Mi Kwon $2,203.43 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4960734?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,886.43 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Exterior Fibre Cement Sheet: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4960734?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4960734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11712270-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4960734?

The tribunal order states: Megan Jeffries must pay Mi Kwon $2,203.43 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4960734?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,886.43 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Exterior Fibre Cement Sheet: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4960734?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4960734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11712270-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Sutton Crescent, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4960734 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4960734 — net $2,203.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 12 June to 30 June 2024	$1,886.43	Rent arrears from 12 June to 30 June 2024
Rubbish removal	$500.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: one lost key	$150.00	Lock/key replacement: one lost key
Repairs: insurance excess (2 lots) for fire and malicious damage	$1,500.00	Repairs: insurance excess (2 lots) for fire and malicious damage
Repairs: replacement of exterior fibre cement sheet	$350.00	Repairs: replacement of exterior fibre cement sheet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Previous rent arrears accrued as at 11 June 2024	$90.00	Previous rent arrears accrued as at 11 June 2024
Net award	$2,203.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,203.43

Both parties attended today’s rehearing ordered by the Tribunal on 31 January 2025.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy after the tenant caused a fire to the premises on 23 April 2024.

The tenant applied for 4 weeks’ rent rebate because the premises were uninhabitable after the fire but the landlord had charged full rent.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 June 2024 after order of the Tribunal under application 4910993.

Following the fire on the premises, the landlord gave notice to the tenant to vacate the premises. The tenant did not vacate the premises immediately after the fire, despite the premises being uninhabitable. The landlord had to apply to the Tribunal for an order to terminate the tenancy.

Because the tenant herself had asked to stay at the premises and had not vacated the premises until a termination order is issued by the Tribunal, I consider that the landlord is entitled to charge rent until the date that actual possession is returned to the landlord. The tenant only returned the keys to the landlord on 30 June 2024.

The tenant herself emailed the landlord on 7 June 2024 pleading for an extension to 24 June to find a suitable house to relocate to.

Under the circumstances, it would be inequitable to deny the landlord’s claim for rent until 30 June 2024. I dismiss the tenant’s claim for rent rebate accordingly.

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The tenant did not return one of the keys. I consider replacement cost of $150.00 fair and reasonable.

I dismiss the landlord’s claim for cost to replace the curtains. I prefer the tenant’s evidence that she never removed any curtains from the premises.

The landlord still has not removed any rubbish from the premises despite the tenancy having ended in June 2024, which is over 10 months ago now.

While the tenant left behind some rubbish, question remains as to the actual extent of the tenant’s rubbish left behind. There were rubbish left behind by previous tenants 4 years ago which has not been removed at the start of this tenancy.

Given the uncertainties surrounding the claim as sought by the landlord, I only award $500.00 for rubbish removal costs.

Only the amounts ordered are proved.

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 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 premises were damaged by a fire that broke out on 23 April 2024. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The tenant’s explanation that the fire had been caused by a displaced candle or glass jar had been disproved by the fire investigation report issued by the landlord’s insurer. I do not find the tenant’s explanation credible. I consider it just that the tenant reimburses the landlord’s two lots of insurance excess totalling $1,500.00 (uninsured loss) pursuant to s49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant's liability has accordingly been limited to the lesser of the insurance excess under section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

The exterior wall was damaged by the tenant’s pet cat. The replacement cost of the exterior fibre cement sheet is proved at $350.00.

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.

Only the amounts ordered are proved. Because the landlord is partly successful on the claim, I also order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4960734 — net $2,203.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 12 June to 30 June 2024	$1,886.43	Rent arrears from 12 June to 30 June 2024
Rubbish removal	$500.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement: one lost key	$150.00	Lock/key replacement: one lost key
Repairs: insurance excess (2 lots) for fire and malicious damage	$1,500.00	Repairs: insurance excess (2 lots) for fire and malicious damage
Repairs: replacement of exterior fibre cement sheet	$350.00	Repairs: replacement of exterior fibre cement sheet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Previous rent arrears accrued as at 11 June 2024	$90.00	Previous rent arrears accrued as at 11 June 2024
Net award	$2,203.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,203.43

Order

Megan Jeffries must pay Mi Kwon $2,203.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 (5774248-003) to Mi Kwon immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s rehearing ordered by the Tribunal on 31 January 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy after the tenant caused a fire to the premises on 23 April 2024.
The tenant applied for 4 weeks’ rent rebate because the premises were uninhabitable after the fire but the landlord had charged full rent.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 June 2024 after order of the Tribunal under application 4910993.
Following the fire on the premises, the landlord gave notice to the tenant to vacate the premises. The tenant did not vacate the premises immediately after the fire, despite the premises being uninhabitable. The landlord had to apply to the Tribunal for an order to terminate the tenancy.
Because the tenant herself had asked to stay at the premises and had not vacated the premises until a termination order is issued by the Tribunal, I consider that the landlord is entitled to charge rent until the date that actual possession is returned to the landlord. The tenant only returned the keys to the landlord on 30 June 2024.
The tenant herself emailed the landlord on 7 June 2024 pleading for an extension to 24 June to find a suitable house to relocate to.
Under the circumstances, it would be inequitable to deny the landlord’s claim for rent until 30 June 2024. I dismiss the tenant’s claim for rent rebate accordingly.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return one of the keys. I consider replacement cost of $150.00 fair and reasonable.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for cost to replace the curtains. I prefer the tenant’s evidence that she never removed any curtains from the premises.
The landlord still has not removed any rubbish from the premises despite the tenancy having ended in June 2024, which is over 10 months ago now.
While the tenant left behind some rubbish, question remains as to the actual extent of the tenant’s rubbish left behind. There were rubbish left behind by previous tenants 4 years ago which has not been removed at the start of this tenancy.
Given the uncertainties surrounding the claim as sought by the landlord, I only award $500.00 for rubbish removal costs.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

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 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 premises were damaged by a fire that broke out on 23 April 2024. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant’s explanation that the fire had been caused by a displaced candle or glass jar had been disproved by the fire investigation report issued by the landlord’s insurer. I do not find the tenant’s explanation credible. I consider it just that the tenant reimburses the landlord’s two lots of insurance excess totalling $1,500.00 (uninsured loss) pursuant to s49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant's liability has accordingly been limited to the lesser of the insurance excess under section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The exterior wall was damaged by the tenant’s pet cat. The replacement cost of the exterior fibre cement sheet is proved at $350.00.
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.
Only the amounts ordered are proved. Because the landlord is partly successful on the claim, I also order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4960734 — Property damage at 25 Sutton Crescent, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4960734 — Property damage at 25 Sutton Crescent, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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