What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4964584?

The tribunal order states: Storme Shaniah Tautari and Creed Michael Perkins must pay W Thompson

How much money was awarded in case 4964584?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Ceramic Cooktop: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wall: $227.70 awarded to landlord; Light Fitting In Lounge: $182.77 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $322.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $31.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bulbs , Plugs And Switch Cov…: $141.12 awarded to landlord; Replace Clip And Cover For Remote: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Door Remote: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $201.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4964584?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4964584?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10907237-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4964584?

The tribunal order states: Storme Shaniah Tautari and Creed Michael Perkins must pay W Thompson

How much money was awarded in case 4964584?

Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Ceramic Cooktop: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wall: $227.70 awarded to landlord; Light Fitting In Lounge: $182.77 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $322.12 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $31.88 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $120.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bulbs , Plugs And Switch Cov…: $141.12 awarded to landlord; Replace Clip And Cover For Remote: $105.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Door Remote: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $201.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4964584?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4964584?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10907237-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

55 Pomona Street, Georgetown, Invercargill 9812 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4964584 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4964584 — net $2,389.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wall repairs	$322.12	Wall repairs
Rubbish removal	$201.25	Rubbish removal
Light fitting in Lounge	$182.77	Light fitting in Lounge
Hole in wall	$227.70	Hole in wall
Ceramic cooktop	$700.00	Ceramic cooktop
Balance to be paid to the internal door repair	$31.88	Balance to be paid to the internal door repair
Replace garage door remote	$150.00	Replace garage door remote
Hole repairs	$1,100.00	Hole repairs
Replace clip and cover for remote	$105.00	Replace clip and cover for remote
Replace bulbs , plugs and switch cover	$141.12	Replace bulbs , plugs and switch cover
Door frame damage	$120.75	Door frame damage
Carpet repair	$100.00	Carpet repair
Carpet cleaning	$500.00	31. Taking into consideration that it was a concrete garage floor, and the tenancy was for some four years I have considered fair wear and tear and the fact th…
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,389.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,389.59

Order

Storme Shaniah Tautari and Creed Michael Perkins must pay W Thompson And Company Limited T/A Harcourts Holmwood As Agent For Keith & Elizabeth Ebenezer $2,389.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (5825742-006) to W Thompson And Company Limited T/A Harcourts Holmwood As Agent For Keith & Elizabeth Ebenezer immediately.

Reasons

Ms Tautari and Mr Perkins, the tenants appeared in person and the respondent was represented today by Ms Bryan, Ms Rule and Mr Ellis.
The tenant applied to the tribunal for exemplary damages claiming that the property manager had discriminated against them and filed opposition to a number of the claims the landlord makes in their application. The landlord has applied for compensation for a number of damages and clean-up costs and the refund of the bond, together with the reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was a lengthy four year tenancy and by in large the tenants claim that they had no issues with the previous property manager and issues began with the most recent property manager.
There had been invoices rendered to the tenants for work that required repair throughout the tenancy, largely in relation to holes that needed repair. Whilst the tenants did their best to repair, they were not to a tradesman like standard.
When the tenants began to fall behind in their regular payments for the invoices the relationship deteriorated as the property manager made numerous requests for payment. The relationship had clearly got to the point where the tenants gave notice to vacate the tenancy.
At the commencement of the hearing, I went through all of the issues with the parties to ensure all issues were discussed that both parties wished to raise. A number of the claims made by the landlord were accepted by the tenants however some were not. I shall now address each of the claims separately and decide on the balance of probabilities, based on the evidence before me.
As stated, In relation to damages, the tenant did agree at the outset to some of the claims.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The amount is proven and in fact the tenant do not dispute this amount, accepting the claim as sought.

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:

COOK TOP

The tenants accepted that the damage to the cook top occurred during the tenancy. However, the tenants claim that a meeting was held regarding the tenancy in general with Ms Watson, their support person, a Sustaining Tenancies Navigator from Emerge and the property managers. They were told (as they were not able to attend the meeting themselves) that emerge would assist the funding of $500.00 for the damage and that they could have sourced a new cook top and had it installed, but that the property manager did not agree.
The property manager said there was no such discussion. There is no evidence from Ms Watson regarding this.
Therefore, on the evidence I must find that the amount sought is proven. There is no evidence from the tenants providing an independent quote for a lessor amount for me to consider.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

TOILET FLUSH

The flush broke on the toilet system when the tenant says he pushed the button and it popped off. He then pushed in a stick to be able to use the toilet. This was bought to the attention of a previous property manager.
The claim is now to fix and instal a new button.
Having considered the tenants submissions on this matter. I accept their claim that it was well known at the start of the tenancy and was not repaired and as the property manager stated in evidence it would have been repaired if she had been told. However, because she in particular was not advised she felt the tenant failed to notify of damage and should be liable.
Having considered the evidence I do not accept that the tenant is liable for this and dismiss this part of the claim. CARPET REPAIRS and CLEANING
The claim for the repair is for a slight cut in the carpet. The tenants claim that the property manager has pulled at it to make it worse.
I do not accept this to be the case and make the award of damages as sought.
The claim is also for carpet cleaning, stain removal and cleaning of the garage concrete floor.
The tenant showed that they had a professional carpet cleaner in to attempt to remove a stain approximately six weeks before they moved out. This person carried out a small area of the entire house. However, the tenants could not afford to do the remaining carpet and the stain removal was unsuccessful.
The evidence in relation to the garage is that people smoked in there.
Taking into consideration that it was a concrete garage floor, and the tenancy was for some four years I have considered fair wear and tear and the fact that the Residential Tenancies Act states that the tenant must leave the property “reasonably clean and tidy”. On this basis, I make an award to contribute to the costs for the carpet cleaning rather that the entire amount of the claim sought. I note that the landlord had a quote that was half the amount of the actual costs and that the garage floor was an expensive clean and I do not accept that that is reasonable and is proven.

SWITCH COVER IN BEDROOM

The tenant accepted a large portion of this invoice however disputed the cover for the switch in the bedroom. He did not recall what happened to it or if it was there at the commencement of the tenancy. The pre inspection report does not record it missing.
In the evidence I accept this part of the claim is proven.

DOOR FRAME

The surrounds of the door frame have clearly been damaged and on the evidence during the tenancy. The tenant claims that someone must have tried to break into the home. There is no independent evidence or police reports showing this. The tenant claims that when he entered the property with a previous property manage the ‘bead’ fell off in his hand, that he put this under the bed and forgot about it till they moved out.
Based on the evidence I find that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear and the amounts sought are proven.

DAMAGE TO WALLS

As stated, the tenants accepted a large portion of the claims but questioned the three invoices in relation to holes in walls and repair. All three invoices were considered and discussed. When the tenants received the explanation at the hearing for some portions of the invoices they agreed. Some areas of the work however they did not accept. However there is no independent evidence before me to consider the work could have been carried out for a lessor price to show what was a fair and reasonable for the work completed.
What is clear is that the damages during the tenancy were repaired and invoices outstanding, from 21 September 2023, and 6 March 2023, and finally 24 July 2024.(the last arose after the tenancy came to an end on 1 July 2024).
Whilst the tenants were frustrated that they were never told to remedy up until the last property manager raised concerns and no previous inspections showed concerns, I am satisfied that the damage did occur during the tenancy and that the damage is largely more than fair wear and tear. However, some of the marks in the hallway I accept are fair wear and tear and therefore I accept the tenants claim and reduce the amount sought to reflect a contribution to the amount sought.
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.

DID THE LANDLORD DISRIMINATE?

The tenants claim that the property manager discriminated against them.
A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation, or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The relationship clearly broke down between the parties and the stress of the cost of living and paying for damages was high for the tenants. The tenants claim that the property manager increased this stress by repeatedly chasing up failed payments. They felt they were discriminated because they were poor. They gave notice and left the tenancy. The tenants became emotional at the end of the hearing and defamatory comments made.
On the evidence I cannot find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act of discrimination in this case and this part of the claim is dismissed.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4964584 — net $2,389.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wall repairs	$322.12	Wall repairs
Rubbish removal	$201.25	Rubbish removal
Light fitting in Lounge	$182.77	Light fitting in Lounge
Hole in wall	$227.70	Hole in wall
Ceramic cooktop	$700.00	Ceramic cooktop
Balance to be paid to the internal door repair	$31.88	Balance to be paid to the internal door repair
Replace garage door remote	$150.00	Replace garage door remote
Hole repairs	$1,100.00	Hole repairs
Replace clip and cover for remote	$105.00	Replace clip and cover for remote
Replace bulbs , plugs and switch cover	$141.12	Replace bulbs , plugs and switch cover
Door frame damage	$120.75	Door frame damage
Carpet repair	$100.00	Carpet repair
Carpet cleaning	$500.00	31. Taking into consideration that it was a concrete garage floor, and the tenancy was for some four years I have considered fair wear and tear and the fact th…
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,389.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,389.59

Order

Storme Shaniah Tautari and Creed Michael Perkins must pay W Thompson And Company Limited T/A Harcourts Holmwood As Agent For Keith & Elizabeth Ebenezer $2,389.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (5825742-006) to W Thompson And Company Limited T/A Harcourts Holmwood As Agent For Keith & Elizabeth Ebenezer immediately.

Reasons

Ms Tautari and Mr Perkins, the tenants appeared in person and the respondent was represented today by Ms Bryan, Ms Rule and Mr Ellis.
The tenant applied to the tribunal for exemplary damages claiming that the property manager had discriminated against them and filed opposition to a number of the claims the landlord makes in their application. The landlord has applied for compensation for a number of damages and clean-up costs and the refund of the bond, together with the reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was a lengthy four year tenancy and by in large the tenants claim that they had no issues with the previous property manager and issues began with the most recent property manager.
There had been invoices rendered to the tenants for work that required repair throughout the tenancy, largely in relation to holes that needed repair. Whilst the tenants did their best to repair, they were not to a tradesman like standard.
When the tenants began to fall behind in their regular payments for the invoices the relationship deteriorated as the property manager made numerous requests for payment. The relationship had clearly got to the point where the tenants gave notice to vacate the tenancy.
At the commencement of the hearing, I went through all of the issues with the parties to ensure all issues were discussed that both parties wished to raise. A number of the claims made by the landlord were accepted by the tenants however some were not. I shall now address each of the claims separately and decide on the balance of probabilities, based on the evidence before me.
As stated, In relation to damages, the tenant did agree at the outset to some of the claims.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The amount is proven and in fact the tenant do not dispute this amount, accepting the claim as sought.

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:

COOK TOP

The tenants accepted that the damage to the cook top occurred during the tenancy. However, the tenants claim that a meeting was held regarding the tenancy in general with Ms Watson, their support person, a Sustaining Tenancies Navigator from Emerge and the property managers. They were told (as they were not able to attend the meeting themselves) that emerge would assist the funding of $500.00 for the damage and that they could have sourced a new cook top and had it installed, but that the property manager did not agree.
The property manager said there was no such discussion. There is no evidence from Ms Watson regarding this.
Therefore, on the evidence I must find that the amount sought is proven. There is no evidence from the tenants providing an independent quote for a lessor amount for me to consider.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

TOILET FLUSH

The flush broke on the toilet system when the tenant says he pushed the button and it popped off. He then pushed in a stick to be able to use the toilet. This was bought to the attention of a previous property manager.
The claim is now to fix and instal a new button.
Having considered the tenants submissions on this matter. I accept their claim that it was well known at the start of the tenancy and was not repaired and as the property manager stated in evidence it would have been repaired if she had been told. However, because she in particular was not advised she felt the tenant failed to notify of damage and should be liable.
Having considered the evidence I do not accept that the tenant is liable for this and dismiss this part of the claim. CARPET REPAIRS and CLEANING
The claim for the repair is for a slight cut in the carpet. The tenants claim that the property manager has pulled at it to make it worse.
I do not accept this to be the case and make the award of damages as sought.
The claim is also for carpet cleaning, stain removal and cleaning of the garage concrete floor.
The tenant showed that they had a professional carpet cleaner in to attempt to remove a stain approximately six weeks before they moved out. This person carried out a small area of the entire house. However, the tenants could not afford to do the remaining carpet and the stain removal was unsuccessful.
The evidence in relation to the garage is that people smoked in there.
Taking into consideration that it was a concrete garage floor, and the tenancy was for some four years I have considered fair wear and tear and the fact that the Residential Tenancies Act states that the tenant must leave the property “reasonably clean and tidy”. On this basis, I make an award to contribute to the costs for the carpet cleaning rather that the entire amount of the claim sought. I note that the landlord had a quote that was half the amount of the actual costs and that the garage floor was an expensive clean and I do not accept that that is reasonable and is proven.

SWITCH COVER IN BEDROOM

The tenant accepted a large portion of this invoice however disputed the cover for the switch in the bedroom. He did not recall what happened to it or if it was there at the commencement of the tenancy. The pre inspection report does not record it missing.
In the evidence I accept this part of the claim is proven.

DOOR FRAME

The surrounds of the door frame have clearly been damaged and on the evidence during the tenancy. The tenant claims that someone must have tried to break into the home. There is no independent evidence or police reports showing this. The tenant claims that when he entered the property with a previous property manage the ‘bead’ fell off in his hand, that he put this under the bed and forgot about it till they moved out.
Based on the evidence I find that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear and the amounts sought are proven.

DAMAGE TO WALLS

As stated, the tenants accepted a large portion of the claims but questioned the three invoices in relation to holes in walls and repair. All three invoices were considered and discussed. When the tenants received the explanation at the hearing for some portions of the invoices they agreed. Some areas of the work however they did not accept. However there is no independent evidence before me to consider the work could have been carried out for a lessor price to show what was a fair and reasonable for the work completed.
What is clear is that the damages during the tenancy were repaired and invoices outstanding, from 21 September 2023, and 6 March 2023, and finally 24 July 2024.(the last arose after the tenancy came to an end on 1 July 2024).
Whilst the tenants were frustrated that they were never told to remedy up until the last property manager raised concerns and no previous inspections showed concerns, I am satisfied that the damage did occur during the tenancy and that the damage is largely more than fair wear and tear. However, some of the marks in the hallway I accept are fair wear and tear and therefore I accept the tenants claim and reduce the amount sought to reflect a contribution to the amount sought.
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.

DID THE LANDLORD DISRIMINATE?

The tenants claim that the property manager discriminated against them.
A landlord must not discriminate against a tenant in relation to the grant, renewal, variation, or termination of a tenancy, in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1999. See sections 12(1) and 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act specifies the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which include sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, race or ethnicity, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 12(1) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The relationship clearly broke down between the parties and the stress of the cost of living and paying for damages was high for the tenants. The tenants claim that the property manager increased this stress by repeatedly chasing up failed payments. They felt they were discriminated because they were poor. They gave notice and left the tenancy. The tenants became emotional at the end of the hearing and defamatory comments made.
On the evidence I cannot find that the landlord has committed an unlawful act of discrimination in this case and this part of the claim is dismissed.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4964584 — Property damage at 55 Pomona Street, Georgetown, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4964584 — Property damage at 55 Pomona Street, Georgetown, Invercargill 9812

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?

COOK TOP

TOILET FLUSH

SWITCH COVER IN BEDROOM

DOOR FRAME

DAMAGE TO WALLS

DID THE LANDLORD DISRIMINATE?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

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?

COOK TOP

TOILET FLUSH

SWITCH COVER IN BEDROOM

DOOR FRAME

DAMAGE TO WALLS

DID THE LANDLORD DISRIMINATE?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions