What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5010889?

The tribunal order states: Nadia Timms must pay Lipmo Limited $13,560.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5010889?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,075.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,240.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $585.00 awarded to landlord; Door And Walls: $2,705.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: beds (2 queen a…: $1,238.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Coffee Table: $89.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Couch: $1,840.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,761.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5010889?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5010889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11371670-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5010889?

The tribunal order states: Nadia Timms must pay Lipmo Limited $13,560.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5010889?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,075.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,240.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $585.00 awarded to landlord; Door And Walls: $2,705.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: beds (2 queen a…: $1,238.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Coffee Table: $89.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Couch: $1,840.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,761.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5010889?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5010889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11371670-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Bayview Street, Kaikoura, Kaikoura 7300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5010889 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5010889 — net $13,560.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27/8/2024	$585.00	Rent arrears to 27/8/2024
Replacement of carpets	$3,075.00	Replacement of carpets
Repairs to wooden floor	$2,240.00	Repairs to wooden floor
Repairs: door and walls	$2,705.00	Repairs: door and walls
Rubbish removal: truck, digger, tip fees and labour	$1,761.00	Rubbish removal: truck, digger, tip fees and labour
Replace furnishings: beds (2 queen and one single	$1,238.00	Replace furnishings: beds (2 queen and one single
Replace furnishings: couch	$1,840.00	Replace furnishings: couch
Replace furnishings: coffee table	$89.00	Replace furnishings: coffee table
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,560.00

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not join the video meeting and could not be contacted by telephone.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 27/8/2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The bond of $1,170 has subsequently been refunded to the landlord so is deducted from the amount owing.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove extensive rubbish. The lawns and gardens were littered with rubbish.

The following chattels were either missing or damaged beyond the reasonable cost of repair at the end of the tenancy: 2 queen and 1 single bed, a large couch and a side table.

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 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: the carpets, wooden flooring and extensive arears of the skirting boards and walls, throughout the property were damaged by dogs that were not permitted to be there.

The tenancy agreement confirms that the tenant must obtain permission to have pets. The landlord said no request was made and no permission was therefore provided. The District Court has confirmed that damage caused by dogs that are not permitted to be at the tenancy, can properly be considered intentional damage, with the result that the tenant is responsible for the full cost of repairing the damage provided it is more than fair wear and tear and taking into account depreciation as set out below. Intentional damage is established, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing each of the compensation claims. The landlord said the carpets were around 1 year old at the commencement of the tenancy, the flooring had been re-sanded at the same time and the paintwork was also reasonably new. A 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 at 20% for both the repairs and the replacement of the chattels, I have therefore taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Because Lipmo Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord did not request suppression and urged that the tenant’s name be published given the extent of the damage she caused. The public interest is firmly on the side of publishing the tenant’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5010889 — net $13,560.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27/8/2024	$585.00	Rent arrears to 27/8/2024
Replacement of carpets	$3,075.00	Replacement of carpets
Repairs to wooden floor	$2,240.00	Repairs to wooden floor
Repairs: door and walls	$2,705.00	Repairs: door and walls
Rubbish removal: truck, digger, tip fees and labour	$1,761.00	Rubbish removal: truck, digger, tip fees and labour
Replace furnishings: beds (2 queen and one single	$1,238.00	Replace furnishings: beds (2 queen and one single
Replace furnishings: couch	$1,840.00	Replace furnishings: couch
Replace furnishings: coffee table	$89.00	Replace furnishings: coffee table
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,560.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,560.00

Order

Nadia Timms must pay Lipmo Limited $13,560.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not join the video meeting and could not be contacted by telephone.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 27/8/2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The bond of $1,170 has subsequently been refunded to the landlord so is deducted from the amount owing.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove extensive rubbish. The lawns and gardens were littered with rubbish.
The following chattels were either missing or damaged beyond the reasonable cost of repair at the end of the tenancy: 2 queen and 1 single bed, a large couch and a side table.
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 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: the carpets, wooden flooring and extensive arears of the skirting boards and walls, throughout the property were damaged by dogs that were not permitted to be there.
The tenancy agreement confirms that the tenant must obtain permission to have pets. The landlord said no request was made and no permission was therefore provided. The District Court has confirmed that damage caused by dogs that are not permitted to be at the tenancy, can properly be considered intentional damage, with the result that the tenant is responsible for the full cost of repairing the damage provided it is more than fair wear and tear and taking into account depreciation as set out below. Intentional damage is established, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing each of the compensation claims. The landlord said the carpets were around 1 year old at the commencement of the tenancy, the flooring had been re-sanded at the same time and the paintwork was also reasonably new. A 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 at 20% for both the repairs and the replacement of the chattels, I have therefore taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because Lipmo Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord did not request suppression and urged that the tenant’s name be published given the extent of the damage she caused. The public interest is firmly on the side of publishing the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5010889 — Property damage at 10 Bayview Street, Kaikoura, Kaikoura 7300

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5010889 — Property damage at 10 Bayview Street, Kaikoura, Kaikoura 7300

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 the 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 the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions