What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5008608?

The tribunal order states: Richard Dela Pena, Jhoel Reyes and Loreto Oller Enriquez must pay Rentin

How much money was awarded in case 5008608?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5008608 D…: $24,709.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Drainpipe And Weatherboard: $805.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $920.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5008608?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5008608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11621412-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5008608?

The tribunal order states: Richard Dela Pena, Jhoel Reyes and Loreto Oller Enriquez must pay Rentin

How much money was awarded in case 5008608?

Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5008608 D…: $24,709.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $632.50 awarded to landlord; Drainpipe And Weatherboard: $805.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $920.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5008608?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5008608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11621412-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

380 Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5008608 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5008608 — net $29,937.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5008608 dated 17/01/2025	$24,709.25	Previous order application 5008608 dated 17/01/2025
Rubbish removal	$920.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: wall damage in bedroom	$850.00	Repairs: wall damage in bedroom
Lock/key replacement	$632.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: drainpipe and weatherboard	$805.00	Repairs: drainpipe and weatherboard
Accelerated depreciation: carpet replacement	$2,000.00	Accelerated depreciation: carpet replacement
Reimbursement of the filing fee	$20.44	Reimbursement of the filing fee
Net award	$29,937.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$29,937.19

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Mr Abbas.

The tenants did not attend and did not answer the calls made to their phones during the hearing. They had been notified of the hearing by email and text, accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in their absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy and to incorporate the previous Tribunal order.

On 17 January 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears and water rates arrears. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

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) RTA.

The landlord has established in evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and did not return the keys. In fact, the house was left considerably dirty and damaged with a number of belongings discarded.

Accordingly, the amounts ordered are proven in evidence and considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for having to repair damages to the wall in one bedroom, replace the carpet for extensive damage throughout and repair a section of the drainpipe and cladding which had been smashed.

To be successful in such claims, 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. The insurance excess is $550 and the weekly rent was $890.

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 (the s49B cap).

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 landlord has proven in evidence that the damage was caused during the tenancy and is in excess of fair wear and tear. The damage outside could have only been caused by the use of excessive force, likely a car driving into it. The carpets are damaged extensively throughout the house by ripping (likely dog damage), cigarette burns, considerable staining and marks. The damage to the wall is significant.

On the evidence I consider the majority of the damage occurred intentionally and some carelessly, for example the carpet damage was so extensive it must have occurred over a significant period and the burns were likely inflicted intentionally given the number. The damage to the drain piping may well have occurred by the careless use of a car in the space.

Accordingly, the amounts ordered are proven in evidence and considered reasonable in the circumstances.

I have reduced the amount claimed for the wall damage slightly to allow for betterment and depreciation of paintwork. 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 that the walls were painted just prior to this tenancy.

Regarding the carpets, the landlord has not yet had them replaced given the extended cost involved ($10,315.50) and the damage is not covered by their insurance. I accept on the evidence that they are no longer usable and as such they will have to be removed and replaced by some form of flooring. The cost of removal alone is $920.

I must also consider that the carpets were 8 years old and the expected lifespan of carpets in New Zealand residential properties is 10 years. Taking into account all factors, I find that an award of $2000 (which is less than the s49B cap) is justified in the circumstances. The tenants have damaged the carpet throughout the large home to an extent they are unusable, and they were in otherwise good condition at the commencement of the tenancy.

Because the landlord was wholly successful with their claim, I approve reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5008608 — net $29,937.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5008608 dated 17/01/2025	$24,709.25	Previous order application 5008608 dated 17/01/2025
Rubbish removal	$920.00	Rubbish removal
Repairs: wall damage in bedroom	$850.00	Repairs: wall damage in bedroom
Lock/key replacement	$632.50	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: drainpipe and weatherboard	$805.00	Repairs: drainpipe and weatherboard
Accelerated depreciation: carpet replacement	$2,000.00	Accelerated depreciation: carpet replacement
Reimbursement of the filing fee	$20.44	Reimbursement of the filing fee
Net award	$29,937.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$29,937.19

Order

Richard Dela Pena, Jhoel Reyes and Loreto Oller Enriquez must pay Rentin Limited $29,937.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 17 January 2025 under application 5008608 5073370.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Mr Abbas.
The tenants did not attend and did not answer the calls made to their phones during the hearing. They had been notified of the hearing by email and text, accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy and to incorporate the previous Tribunal order.
On 17 January 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears and water rates arrears. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.

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) RTA.
The landlord has established in evidence that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and did not return the keys. In fact, the house was left considerably dirty and damaged with a number of belongings discarded.
Accordingly, the amounts ordered are proven in evidence and considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for having to repair damages to the wall in one bedroom, replace the carpet for extensive damage throughout and repair a section of the drainpipe and cladding which had been smashed.
To be successful in such claims, 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. The insurance excess is $550 and the weekly rent was $890.
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 (the s49B cap).
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 landlord has proven in evidence that the damage was caused during the tenancy and is in excess of fair wear and tear. The damage outside could have only been caused by the use of excessive force, likely a car driving into it. The carpets are damaged extensively throughout the house by ripping (likely dog damage), cigarette burns, considerable staining and marks. The damage to the wall is significant.
On the evidence I consider the majority of the damage occurred intentionally and some carelessly, for example the carpet damage was so extensive it must have occurred over a significant period and the burns were likely inflicted intentionally given the number. The damage to the drain piping may well have occurred by the careless use of a car in the space.
Accordingly, the amounts ordered are proven in evidence and considered reasonable in the circumstances.
I have reduced the amount claimed for the wall damage slightly to allow for betterment and depreciation of paintwork. 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 that the walls were painted just prior to this tenancy.
Regarding the carpets, the landlord has not yet had them replaced given the extended cost involved ($10,315.50) and the damage is not covered by their insurance. I accept on the evidence that they are no longer usable and as such they will have to be removed and replaced by some form of flooring. The cost of removal alone is $920.
I must also consider that the carpets were 8 years old and the expected lifespan of carpets in New Zealand residential properties is 10 years. Taking into account all factors, I find that an award of $2000 (which is less than the s49B cap) is justified in the circumstances. The tenants have damaged the carpet throughout the large home to an extent they are unusable, and they were in otherwise good condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
Because the landlord was wholly successful with their claim, I approve reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5008608 — Property damage at 380 Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5008608 — Property damage at 380 Richardson Road, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

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