What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5000889?

The tribunal order states: Eva Watkins must pay Mid North Real Estate Limited As Agents For Saroja &

How much money was awarded in case 5000889?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,402.03 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $127.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5000889?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5000889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11097839-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5000889?

The tribunal order states: Eva Watkins must pay Mid North Real Estate Limited As Agents For Saroja &

How much money was awarded in case 5000889?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,402.03 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $127.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5000889?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5000889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11097839-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

46 Mawson Avenue, Waipapa, Waipapa 0230 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5000889 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5000889 — net $3,056.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$127.60	Rubbish removal
Repairs: wall damage and painting	$1,402.03	Repairs: wall damage and painting
Repairs: Insurance excess floor damage	$1,500.00	Repairs: Insurance excess floor damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,056.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,056.63

The landlord attended the hearing the tenant was called twice but both calls went to answerphone.

The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to the floors, rubbish removal, repairs and repainting of the walls and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant was evicted from the premises on the 1 August 2024 after the tenant failed to comply with a conditional termination order.

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 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.

I am satisfied that the tenant caused damage to the wooden floors in the lounge, kitchen, dining, master bedroom and hallway. The landlord provided the photographs of the floors before and after the tenancy. The floors in the living room, dining, kitchen and hallway are heaving scratched and marked. The landlord also tells me that the master bedroom was heavily scratched as well.

The landlord has successfully claimed insurance for resurfacing the floors but has had to pay an excess for each room. The landlord is claiming 5 excesses. As I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the damage in kitchen, dining, lounge, (which was one excess) master bedroom and hallway. I have awarded the three excesses for those rooms.

As I am not satisfied that the tenant damaged the two bedrooms, then I do not award those excesses. I am not satisfied that the damage was more likely than not caused by the tenant during her tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear for a floor of this age.

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. 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. Filing fee

Because Mid North Real Estate Limited As Agents For Saroja & Ilavenil Subbiah has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5000889 — net $3,056.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$127.60	Rubbish removal
Repairs: wall damage and painting	$1,402.03	Repairs: wall damage and painting
Repairs: Insurance excess floor damage	$1,500.00	Repairs: Insurance excess floor damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,056.63
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,056.63

Order

Eva Watkins must pay Mid North Real Estate Limited As Agents For Saroja & Ilavenil Subbiah $3,056.63 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing the tenant was called twice but both calls went to answerphone.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to the floors, rubbish removal, repairs and repainting of the walls and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant was evicted from the premises on the 1 August 2024 after the tenant failed to comply with a conditional termination order.

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 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.
I am satisfied that the tenant caused damage to the wooden floors in the lounge, kitchen, dining, master bedroom and hallway. The landlord provided the photographs of the floors before and after the tenancy. The floors in the living room, dining, kitchen and hallway are heaving scratched and marked. The landlord also tells me that the master bedroom was heavily scratched as well.
The landlord has successfully claimed insurance for resurfacing the floors but has had to pay an excess for each room. The landlord is claiming 5 excesses. As I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the damage in kitchen, dining, lounge, (which was one excess) master bedroom and hallway. I have awarded the three excesses for those rooms.
As I am not satisfied that the tenant damaged the two bedrooms, then I do not award those excesses. I am not satisfied that the damage was more likely than not caused by the tenant during her tenancy and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear for a floor of this age.
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. 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. Filing fee
Because Mid North Real Estate Limited As Agents For Saroja & Ilavenil Subbiah has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5000889 — Property damage at 46 Mawson Avenue, Waipapa, Waipapa 0230

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5000889 — Property damage at 46 Mawson Avenue, Waipapa, Waipapa 0230

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

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions