What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4984188?

The tribunal order states: James Ruru, Richie Morrell and William Matthews must pay Oxygen.Co.Nz

How much money was awarded in case 4984188?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; In Relation To The Walls Being Paint…: $2,614.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4911533 D…: $14,700.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $731.50 awarded to landlord; Remove Dumped Mattress: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Smashed Glass In Stairwell: $1,145.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,835.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4984188?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4984188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11014316-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4984188?

The tribunal order states: James Ruru, Richie Morrell and William Matthews must pay Oxygen.Co.Nz

How much money was awarded in case 4984188?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; In Relation To The Walls Being Paint…: $2,614.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4911533 D…: $14,700.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $731.50 awarded to landlord; Remove Dumped Mattress: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Smashed Glass In Stairwell: $1,145.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,835.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4984188?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4984188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11014316-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 28, 22 Sussex Street, Mount Cook, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 4984188 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4984188 — net $21,173.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4911533 dated 31/07/2024	$14,700.44	Previous order application 4911533 dated 31/07/2024
Replace 3 damaged wall heaters (30% depreciation applied	$731.50	Replace 3 damaged wall heaters (30% depreciation applied
Cleaning including carpet cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,835.40	Cleaning including carpet cleaning and rubbish removal
in relation to the walls being painted rather than varnished	$2,614.00	in relation to the walls being painted rather than varnished
Remove dumped mattress	$120.00	Remove dumped mattress
Replace smashed glass in stairwell	$1,145.00	Replace smashed glass in stairwell
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$21,173.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$21,173.34

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The Tribunal was unable to contact the tenants on the contact numbers provided in the application. I proceeded with the hearing in the tenants’ absence as I was satisfied adequate service of the hearing notice had been completed.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy, and did they damage the premises?

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 (“RTA”).

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.

The landlord has proven in evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord relied on the exit property inspection report, photographs, and invoices. The photographs clearly show the tenants did not clean the property, which was left in a poor condition with substantial amounts of rubbish and belongings scattered throughout the property. The amount ordered is proved.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Three wall heaters had been forcibly removed from the walls, resulting in visible damage to all heaters and the surrounding areas. Additionally, several internal doors had sustained significant damage. In the bathroom, the towel rail had come off the wall and had been temporarily secured with tape. The bathroom also showed signs of damage due to mould growth. Furthermore, a cabinet door was broken and had been taken off entirely; a new door needed to be installed. Finally, a curtain that was previously hung had become dislodged and required rehanging.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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.

The depreciation guides used by the Tribunal (being a combination of commercial and Inland Revenue guidelines) estimate 10 years as a useful life for mounted wall heaters in tenanted properties. The landlord estimated that the heaters could have been 2-3 years old. The heaters were probably at least 30% into their estimated life and the tenants would therefore be liable for 70% of the claimed amount.

I have also made a deduction of $100.00 of the cost claimed in painting the bathroom which were originally varnished. Generally, painting a bathroom can be more expensive than varnish due to the type of paint specifically required for bathrooms (usually moisture resistant or mildew resistant). Other costs

The landlord has received invoices from the Body Corporate for costs related to two specific incidents: the removal of a dumped mattress, which cost $120.00, and the replacement of a smashed glass window in the stairwell, totalling $1,145.00. The Body Corporate alleges that the tenants were responsible for breaking the second-storey stairwell window and for leaving the mattress in the courtyard, which necessitated its removal.

At the time, both the property manager and a tenant from another unit witnessed these events and reported them to the Body Corporate Facilities Coordinator.

Given the circumstances, even though the landlord's evidence is somewhat limited, I find it acceptable. The landlord’s claims are uncontested. I conclude that the tenants had breached both the Tenancy Agreement and Body Corporate rules by leaving unauthorised items in the common area and damaging the stairwell window. As a result, the landlord has incurred costs due to these breaches. I am satisfied that the landlord is entitled to recover these costs under the terms of the contract, and the tenants are required to reimburse the landlord accordingly. Incorporating previous order

On 31 July 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee, totalling $14,700.44 The previous order is incorporated into this current order for enforcement purposes. Filing fee

As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4984188 — net $21,173.34 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4911533 dated 31/07/2024	$14,700.44	Previous order application 4911533 dated 31/07/2024
Replace 3 damaged wall heaters (30% depreciation applied	$731.50	Replace 3 damaged wall heaters (30% depreciation applied
Cleaning including carpet cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,835.40	Cleaning including carpet cleaning and rubbish removal
in relation to the walls being painted rather than varnished	$2,614.00	in relation to the walls being painted rather than varnished
Remove dumped mattress	$120.00	Remove dumped mattress
Replace smashed glass in stairwell	$1,145.00	Replace smashed glass in stairwell
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$21,173.34
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$21,173.34

Order

James Ruru, Richie Morrell and William Matthews must pay Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited As Agent For Dennis Brown $21,173.34 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 31 July 2024 under application 4911533.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The Tribunal was unable to contact the tenants on the contact numbers provided in the application. I proceeded with the hearing in the tenants’ absence as I was satisfied adequate service of the hearing notice had been completed.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy, and did they damage the premises?
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 (“RTA”).
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.
The landlord has proven in evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord relied on the exit property inspection report, photographs, and invoices. The photographs clearly show the tenants did not clean the property, which was left in a poor condition with substantial amounts of rubbish and belongings scattered throughout the property. The amount ordered is proved.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Three wall heaters had been forcibly removed from the walls, resulting in visible damage to all heaters and the surrounding areas. Additionally, several internal doors had sustained significant damage. In the bathroom, the towel rail had come off the wall and had been temporarily secured with tape. The bathroom also showed signs of damage due to mould growth. Furthermore, a cabinet door was broken and had been taken off entirely; a new door needed to be installed. Finally, a curtain that was previously hung had become dislodged and required rehanging.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
The depreciation guides used by the Tribunal (being a combination of commercial and Inland Revenue guidelines) estimate 10 years as a useful life for mounted wall heaters in tenanted properties. The landlord estimated that the heaters could have been 2-3 years old. The heaters were probably at least 30% into their estimated life and the tenants would therefore be liable for 70% of the claimed amount.
I have also made a deduction of $100.00 of the cost claimed in painting the bathroom which were originally varnished. Generally, painting a bathroom can be more expensive than varnish due to the type of paint specifically required for bathrooms (usually moisture resistant or mildew resistant). Other costs
The landlord has received invoices from the Body Corporate for costs related to two specific incidents: the removal of a dumped mattress, which cost $120.00, and the replacement of a smashed glass window in the stairwell, totalling $1,145.00. The Body Corporate alleges that the tenants were responsible for breaking the second-storey stairwell window and for leaving the mattress in the courtyard, which necessitated its removal.
At the time, both the property manager and a tenant from another unit witnessed these events and reported them to the Body Corporate Facilities Coordinator.
Given the circumstances, even though the landlord's evidence is somewhat limited, I find it acceptable. The landlord’s claims are uncontested. I conclude that the tenants had breached both the Tenancy Agreement and Body Corporate rules by leaving unauthorised items in the common area and damaging the stairwell window. As a result, the landlord has incurred costs due to these breaches. I am satisfied that the landlord is entitled to recover these costs under the terms of the contract, and the tenants are required to reimburse the landlord accordingly. Incorporating previous order
On 31 July 2024, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee, totalling $14,700.44 The previous order is incorporated into this current order for enforcement purposes. Filing fee
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4984188 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 28, 22 Sussex Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4984188 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 28, 22 Sussex Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions