What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4980268?

The tribunal order states: Troy Collins and Eden Aramoana must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4980268?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $309.81 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4923173 D…: $4,190.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $236.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $880.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Toilet Wall: $713.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: missing curtain…: $738.18 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,125.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4980268?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4980268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10879641-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4980268?

The tribunal order states: Troy Collins and Eden Aramoana must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4980268?

Cleaning: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $309.81 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4923173 D…: $4,190.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $236.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $880.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Toilet Wall: $713.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: missing curtain…: $738.18 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,125.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4980268?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4980268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10879641-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

58 Storey Avenue, Forest Lake, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4980268 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4980268 — net $7,100.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 August 2024	$880.00	Rent arrears to 12 August 2024
Previous order application 4923173 dated 26/07/2024	$4,190.44	Previous order application 4923173 dated 26/07/2024
Replace furnishings: missing curtains and rails	$738.18	Replace furnishings: missing curtains and rails
Repairs: holes in toilet wall	$713.00	Repairs: holes in toilet wall
Lock/key replacement	$236.90	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$1,125.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$309.81	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning: including carpet cleaning	$800.00	Cleaning: including carpet cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,100.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,100.33

Order

Troy Collins and Eden Aramoana must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Weibo Sun $7,100.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 27 July 2024 under application NZTT 4923173.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (5658118-004) to Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Weibo Sun immediately.

Reasons

Mr Berryman and Ms Moulden appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
On 27 July 2024, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy for rent arrears effective 01 August 2024. The Tribunal ordered rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 27 August 2024, the landlord filed a further claim for rent arrears, and that tenant had: i. Failed to leave the lawn in a reasonable condition, ii. Failed to leave the interior of the property reasonably clean, iii. Failed to remove all rubbish, iv. Caused damage to the walls, v. Failed to return the keys, vi. Removed curtains and curtain rails.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

How much is owed for rent?

On 27 July 2024, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy effective 01 August 2024. The landlord claims the tenant did not vacate the property until 12 August 2024, and is seeking additional rent arrears beyond that already awarded. The landlord has produced up dated rent records, and the amount claimed is awarded.

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

The tenancy commenced on 10 August 2019. On 26 January 2023, there was a change of landlord. A pre tenancy inspection report is included in the tenancy agreement but is has not been completed by the parties. The landlord has produced photographs of the property provided by the previous landlord. Although they are undated, the landlord believes they have been taken shortly after the commencement of the tenancy. It is obvious that the property is occupied. The landlord has also produced inspection reports, which include photographs, from 13 February 2023, the first inspection after the change of landlord, 17 August 2023, 24 January 2024, and at the end of the tenancy on 12 August 2024. Ms Moulden states she was the property manager until 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) of the Act. Lawn
The landlord has produced a photograph of an area of lawn which has been damaged. The damage is consistent with having been driven over repeatedly. The cost of restoring the affected area was $309.81. There is sufficient evidence on which to be satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, and the amount claimed is awarded. Cleaning and rubbish removal
From the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy it appears that no cleaning was undertaken by the tenant before leaving. The photographs also show a considerable amount of household items and rubbish left inside and outside.
The property consists of three bedrooms, kitchen / dining room, lounge / living room, bathroom, toilet, laundry, and a small garden shed.
The landlord is claiming $800.00 for cleaning, which includes the carpet throughout, $400.00 for skip hire, $700.00 labour to fill the skip. The invoice for rubbish removal includes “Extra dump needed for rubbish include 3 tires ($490.00)”. There has been discussion about the basis of this claim. It is agreed that the disposal of three car tyres cannot cost $490.00. Furthermore, just the one trye is shown in the evidence.
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property clean, including the carpet, in a reasonably clean condition, and the amount claimed is reasonable. I am also satisfied that the tenant has failed to remove rubbish. However, the evidence does not support awarding the full amount claimed. I award the landlord skip hire, labour to fill the skip, and $25.00 to remove the trye. Keys
The tenant did not return any keys at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed covers rekeying the back door, ranchslider entrances, and the exterior laundry door which leads to the deck. The invoice also includes installation of a patio bolt to the inside of a ranchslider for added security. I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for this cost. The balance of the invoice is reasonable and awarded. Curtains and curtain rails
The landlord has produced photographs showing missing curtains and curtain rails in the front bedroom, dining / kitchen, and lounge. The curtains and rails can be seen in the property inspection conducted during the tenancy. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the curtains and rails were removed during the tenancy.
When awarding compensation for missing chattels (such as curtains and rails), the Tribunal must consider 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 and betterment, the Tribunal into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their expected lifespan.
The landlord states that the curtains were new at the commencement of the tenancy in 2019, making them around five years old. Curtains in rental properties typically have a useful lifespan of around 8 – 10 years, meaning that the curtains were at least halfway through their expected life. The landlord proposes reducing the claim of $1,476.37 by 50% for depreciation. I accept that submission and award the landlord $738.18.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the tenant is liable for damage consisting of holes in the walls of the lounge, toilet, and laundry. The landlord is claiming a total of $1,725.00 to repair this damage.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
“Fair wear and tear” are generally described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord. Analysis
The issue in the claim is whether there is sufficient evidence to be satisfied that the damage claimed has occurred during the tenancy.
To determine whether damage has occurred during the tenancy involves making an objective a before and after comparison. In this case, there is no pre tenancy checklist documenting the condition of the damaged areas at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs provided, taken shortly after the commencement of the tenancy, do not show the affected areas.
Ms Moulden states that during a property inspection on or around July 2024, shortly before the end of the tenancy, that no damage was obvious. Ms Moulden added that she believed the property had been redecorated shortly before the commencement of the tenancy, with the wallpaper stripped in the process. However, the first inspection conducted by the landlord on 13 February 2023 casts some doubt on that claim, as the paint and wallpaper are noted as showing signs of wear and tear throughout the property. The inspection report from that date, however, does show the toilet wall in an undamaged state.
In this case the only area where I can make a proper objective assessment is the hole in the toilet wall. I am satisfied that, more likely than not, this damage has occurred during tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. The landlord claims that only the damaged area was repaired, and I make no deduction for betterment. I award the amount claimed to repair the hole in the toilet wall which is $713.00.
As for the damage to the wall in the lounge and the laundry, there is insufficient evidence to establish that this more likely than not occurred during the tenancy.
On 27 July 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for termination and rent arrears to 01 August 2024. The monetary order has not yet been enforced. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Costs.
Because Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Weibo Sun has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
The landlord, although substantially successful, does not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4980268 — net $7,100.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 12 August 2024	$880.00	Rent arrears to 12 August 2024
Previous order application 4923173 dated 26/07/2024	$4,190.44	Previous order application 4923173 dated 26/07/2024
Replace furnishings: missing curtains and rails	$738.18	Replace furnishings: missing curtains and rails
Repairs: holes in toilet wall	$713.00	Repairs: holes in toilet wall
Lock/key replacement	$236.90	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$1,125.00	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$309.81	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning: including carpet cleaning	$800.00	Cleaning: including carpet cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,100.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,100.33

Order

Troy Collins and Eden Aramoana must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Weibo Sun $7,100.33 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 27 July 2024 under application NZTT 4923173.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (5658118-004) to Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Weibo Sun immediately.

Reasons

Mr Berryman and Ms Moulden appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
On 27 July 2024, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy for rent arrears effective 01 August 2024. The Tribunal ordered rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 27 August 2024, the landlord filed a further claim for rent arrears, and that tenant had: i. Failed to leave the lawn in a reasonable condition, ii. Failed to leave the interior of the property reasonably clean, iii. Failed to remove all rubbish, iv. Caused damage to the walls, v. Failed to return the keys, vi. Removed curtains and curtain rails.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

How much is owed for rent?

On 27 July 2024, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy effective 01 August 2024. The landlord claims the tenant did not vacate the property until 12 August 2024, and is seeking additional rent arrears beyond that already awarded. The landlord has produced up dated rent records, and the amount claimed is awarded.

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

The tenancy commenced on 10 August 2019. On 26 January 2023, there was a change of landlord. A pre tenancy inspection report is included in the tenancy agreement but is has not been completed by the parties. The landlord has produced photographs of the property provided by the previous landlord. Although they are undated, the landlord believes they have been taken shortly after the commencement of the tenancy. It is obvious that the property is occupied. The landlord has also produced inspection reports, which include photographs, from 13 February 2023, the first inspection after the change of landlord, 17 August 2023, 24 January 2024, and at the end of the tenancy on 12 August 2024. Ms Moulden states she was the property manager until 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) of the Act. Lawn
The landlord has produced a photograph of an area of lawn which has been damaged. The damage is consistent with having been driven over repeatedly. The cost of restoring the affected area was $309.81. There is sufficient evidence on which to be satisfied that this damage occurred during the tenancy, and the amount claimed is awarded. Cleaning and rubbish removal
From the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy it appears that no cleaning was undertaken by the tenant before leaving. The photographs also show a considerable amount of household items and rubbish left inside and outside.
The property consists of three bedrooms, kitchen / dining room, lounge / living room, bathroom, toilet, laundry, and a small garden shed.
The landlord is claiming $800.00 for cleaning, which includes the carpet throughout, $400.00 for skip hire, $700.00 labour to fill the skip. The invoice for rubbish removal includes “Extra dump needed for rubbish include 3 tires ($490.00)”. There has been discussion about the basis of this claim. It is agreed that the disposal of three car tyres cannot cost $490.00. Furthermore, just the one trye is shown in the evidence.
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property clean, including the carpet, in a reasonably clean condition, and the amount claimed is reasonable. I am also satisfied that the tenant has failed to remove rubbish. However, the evidence does not support awarding the full amount claimed. I award the landlord skip hire, labour to fill the skip, and $25.00 to remove the trye. Keys
The tenant did not return any keys at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed covers rekeying the back door, ranchslider entrances, and the exterior laundry door which leads to the deck. The invoice also includes installation of a patio bolt to the inside of a ranchslider for added security. I am not satisfied that the tenant is liable for this cost. The balance of the invoice is reasonable and awarded. Curtains and curtain rails
The landlord has produced photographs showing missing curtains and curtain rails in the front bedroom, dining / kitchen, and lounge. The curtains and rails can be seen in the property inspection conducted during the tenancy. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the curtains and rails were removed during the tenancy.
When awarding compensation for missing chattels (such as curtains and rails), the Tribunal must consider 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 and betterment, the Tribunal into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their expected lifespan.
The landlord states that the curtains were new at the commencement of the tenancy in 2019, making them around five years old. Curtains in rental properties typically have a useful lifespan of around 8 – 10 years, meaning that the curtains were at least halfway through their expected life. The landlord proposes reducing the claim of $1,476.37 by 50% for depreciation. I accept that submission and award the landlord $738.18.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the tenant is liable for damage consisting of holes in the walls of the lounge, toilet, and laundry. The landlord is claiming a total of $1,725.00 to repair this damage.
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
“Fair wear and tear” are generally described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord. Analysis
The issue in the claim is whether there is sufficient evidence to be satisfied that the damage claimed has occurred during the tenancy.
To determine whether damage has occurred during the tenancy involves making an objective a before and after comparison. In this case, there is no pre tenancy checklist documenting the condition of the damaged areas at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs provided, taken shortly after the commencement of the tenancy, do not show the affected areas.
Ms Moulden states that during a property inspection on or around July 2024, shortly before the end of the tenancy, that no damage was obvious. Ms Moulden added that she believed the property had been redecorated shortly before the commencement of the tenancy, with the wallpaper stripped in the process. However, the first inspection conducted by the landlord on 13 February 2023 casts some doubt on that claim, as the paint and wallpaper are noted as showing signs of wear and tear throughout the property. The inspection report from that date, however, does show the toilet wall in an undamaged state.
In this case the only area where I can make a proper objective assessment is the hole in the toilet wall. I am satisfied that, more likely than not, this damage has occurred during tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability. The landlord claims that only the damaged area was repaired, and I make no deduction for betterment. I award the amount claimed to repair the hole in the toilet wall which is $713.00.
As for the damage to the wall in the lounge and the laundry, there is insufficient evidence to establish that this more likely than not occurred during the tenancy.
On 27 July 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for termination and rent arrears to 01 August 2024. The monetary order has not yet been enforced. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Costs.
Because Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Weibo Sun has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
The landlord, although substantially successful, does not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4980268 — Property damage at 58 Storey Avenue, Forest Lake, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4980268 — Property damage at 58 Storey Avenue, Forest Lake, Hamilton 3200

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 damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

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 damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions