What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5017168?

The tribunal order states: Luke Dylan Bell must pay Quality Rental Management Limited as agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5017168?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet Deodorise: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $599.81 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,141.79 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,815.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Window Film From Windows: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017168?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11352127-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5017168?

The tribunal order states: Luke Dylan Bell must pay Quality Rental Management Limited as agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5017168?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet Deodorise: $184.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $599.81 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,141.79 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,815.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Window Film From Windows: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5017168?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5017168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11352127-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Bader Street, Bader, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5017168 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5017168 — net $5,164.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 October 2024	$1,815.00	Rent arrears to 9 October 2024
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet Deodorise	$184.00	Carpet Deodorise
Cleaning	$599.81	Cleaning
Window film from windows	$230.00	Window film from windows
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Painting	$1,800.00	Repairs: Painting
Carpet replacement	$2,141.79	Carpet replacement
Net award	$5,164.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,164.60

Luke Dylan Bell must pay Quality Rental Management Limited as agent for Jenny Hodgson $5,164.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (5098523-003) to Quality Rental Management Limited as agent for Jenny Hodgson immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Bell attended by telephone and the landlords appeared in person.

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

The tenant agreed that he owed the rent arrears claimed and this is awarded to 9 October 2024, being the end of the tenancy.

The landlord claimed for the cost to clean the carpet, revisit, and deodorise the carpet and for an end of tenancy clean of the premises. The tenant agreed to these costs as claimed. The tenant said that he reluctantly agreed to the general clean but did not dispute this any further.

The tenant also agreed that he had put film on the windows for privacy which he did not have time to remove at the end of the tenancy. This amount is awarded as claimed. Garden waste.

The landlord claimed for the removal of garden waste, being tree branches from trimmed tees at the premises. It was agreed by the parties that the tenant had undertaken some garden maintenance with the landlord’s consent, but the landlords said when the tenancy ended, they found further work done by the tenant that they had not agreed to and sought compensation for the costs to remove the extra branches.

The tenant said that this was all agreed to, and he was told that he would not be charged for the removal of the tree branches. The landlord confirmed that section maintenance was not the tenant’s responsibility.

I do not find that the tenant is liable for this cost as it appears arbitrary where the tenant was to trim the trees and where he was not. There was no written agreement making it clear to the tenant what area he had permission for.

This claim is dismissed.

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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) The carpet had cigarette burns in a lot of the rooms. b) The walls in a bedroom were damaged by smoke fumes, and other walls by tenant repairs ,screw holes in the window frames and some scrapes.

The landlord said both these claims were referred to the insurance company which said that each damage incident would attract an Insurance excess so it would not be worth claiming.

The premises had new carpet at the start of the tenancy and the tenant agreed that one flatmate smoked in their room and there were some burns in the carpet in their room and the lounge. He disputed that there were burn marks in other areas in the house. I find this intentional damage as the situation of smoking inside caused damage over more than one occasion.

The landlord provided photographs of numerous small burn holes but it was difficult to attribute these to every room in the house.

The landlord tried to remove the marks with carpet cleaning, but this was not successful. Smoking was not allowed in any part of the premises.

A quote for carpet replacement of all the carpet at the premises was provided and the amount claimed in full.

The amount ordered for carpet replacement is nominal because the landlord has not completed this repair and has tenanted the premises. I do not find that the landlord has established a loss and award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and have caused damage for which they are liable, but I am not persuaded the precise loss has been quantified.

The landlord claimed for a repaint of all the walls in two rooms due to cigarette smoke damage and repairs and painting of other areas throughout the house. Photographs of stained walls, screw holes attempted repair patches were provided.

The tenant disputed the need to repaint the second room and disputed that the repair patches had occurred during this tenancy. A pre tenancy inspection report was provided noting small scuffs and scratches but none of the big, patched areas. The tenant said that he had a chance to comment on the report but did not assuming that these were acknowledged. No other evidence was provided by the tenant supporting his claims.

I find that the damage from the smoking inside, curtain screw holes from the tenant putting up part of a tent and furniture scrapes careless damage. The landlord has established that damaged occurred and in most of the rooms, the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has 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. 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.

Because Quality Rental Management Limited as agent for Jenny Hodgson has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5017168 — net $5,164.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 9 October 2024	$1,815.00	Rent arrears to 9 October 2024
Carpet Cleaning	$207.00	Carpet Cleaning
Carpet Deodorise	$184.00	Carpet Deodorise
Cleaning	$599.81	Cleaning
Window film from windows	$230.00	Window film from windows
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Painting	$1,800.00	Repairs: Painting
Carpet replacement	$2,141.79	Carpet replacement
Net award	$5,164.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,164.60

Luke Dylan Bell must pay Quality Rental Management Limited as agent for Jenny Hodgson $5,164.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (5098523-003) to Quality Rental Management Limited as agent for Jenny Hodgson immediately.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Bell attended by telephone and the landlords appeared in person.

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

The tenant agreed that he owed the rent arrears claimed and this is awarded to 9 October 2024, being the end of the tenancy.

The tenant also agreed that he had put film on the windows for privacy which he did not have time to remove at the end of the tenancy. This amount is awarded as claimed. Garden waste.

This claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord said both these claims were referred to the insurance company which said that each damage incident would attract an Insurance excess so it would not be worth claiming.

The landlord provided photographs of numerous small burn holes but it was difficult to attribute these to every room in the house.

The landlord tried to remove the marks with carpet cleaning, but this was not successful. Smoking was not allowed in any part of the premises.

A quote for carpet replacement of all the carpet at the premises was provided and the amount claimed in full.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Quality Rental Management Limited as agent for Jenny Hodgson has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017168 — Property damage at 20 Bader Street, Bader, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5017168 — Property damage at 20 Bader Street, Bader, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions