What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5049028?

The tribunal order states: Maddison Shirley, Emma Sullivan and Daisy Johanason to pay Irelands Real

How much money was awarded in case 5049028?

Carpet: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $85.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $160.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5049028?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5049028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11693697-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5049028?

The tribunal order states: Maddison Shirley, Emma Sullivan and Daisy Johanason to pay Irelands Real

How much money was awarded in case 5049028?

Carpet: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $85.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $160.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5049028?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5049028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11693697-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Tanner Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5049028 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5049028 — net $622.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: toilet seat	$150.00	Repairs: toilet seat
Lawns and garden work	$85.00	Lawns and garden work
Rubbish removal, gardens and windows	$160.00	Rubbish removal, gardens and windows
Carpet	$200.00	Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$622.00
Bond	$1,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$622.00

Maddison Shirley, Emma Sullivan and Daisy Johanason to pay Irelands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Colin Cameron $622.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3280263-013) immediately apportioned as follows: Irelands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Colin Cameron: $622.00 Maddison Shirley, Emma Sullivan and Daisy Johanason: $978.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenants did not answer either of the two calls made to each of the three numbers provided to the Tribunal at the scheduled time.

The landlord provided a screenshot of a text message exchange she had with one of the tenants Daisy Johansson, on Friday 24 January 2024. In this exchange Ms Johansson asks why a Tenancy Tribunal hearing has been scheduled, and states that she will not be able to attend. On the basis of this text exchange, I am satisfied this tenant had notice of the hearing and chose not to attend. No requests for an adjournment have been made in relation to this application. The hearing was therefore conducted in the tenants’ absence.

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

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.

At the end of this tenancy the landlord claims the tenant did not mow the lawns, did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all of the rubbish.

The landlord provided oral evidence and photographs that show the lawns hadn’t been mowed, and an invoice for mowing for $85.00. This claim is proved.

The landlord is claiming $320.00 for window cleaning, rubbish removal and gardening. An invoice was produced for this amount, and photographs were also provided showing the condition of the premises at the end of the premises.

Whereas I accept there was more cleaning needed before the premises was re- tenanted, I am not persuaded that this claim is fully proved; the windows for instance are not shown to be below the standard of reasonably clean and tidy, and a further claim for gardening is not substantiated. This claim is partially proved for some further cleaning and rubbish removal.

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.

The landlord claims that during the tenancy a toilet seat was broken and needed to be replaced. The landlord provided an invoice for $198.66. Photographs from the start of tenancy show the toilet seat to be undamaged. Photographs from the end of tenancy show the toilet seat to be missing the lid. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability. I find the damage to be careless.

This claim is proved and the amount awarded takes into account the fact that by the end of the tenancy the toilet seat was at least five years old.

The landlord claims the carpet in bedroom 3 was damaged with a stain the size of an old fifty cent piece, from hair dye. The landlord is claiming $977.00 to replace the carpet in this bedroom. The insurance excess for this claim would have been $3000.00. Oral evidence, photographs and a quotation for $977.00 were provided.

I accept the tenants caused the damage and it is more than fair wear and tear. However I do not consider it reasonable to replace the carpet for the whole room because of this one stain. I do not consider the stain would have caused a reduction in the amount of rent that could be charged, and by the end of the tenancy, the carpet was at least five years old. On the other hand, I accept the landlord has suffered a loss because of the tenants’ carelessness and should be compensated for this.

I find this claim partially proved and I award a lesser amount based on what I consider to be objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord is claiming $85.00 for the replacement of a door handle that they say the tenant replaced during the tenancy because she wanted a door handle with a lock. At the beginning of the subsequent tenancy the door handle broke. An invoice was produced in support of the claim.

The damage was not noticed at the end of the tenancy and I am not persuaded that it can be proved the damage was caused by these tenants. By the time the damage was discovered, workers, other people and the new tenants had all been through the property. This claim is not proved.

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 Irelands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Colin Cameron has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5049028 — net $622.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: toilet seat	$150.00	Repairs: toilet seat
Lawns and garden work	$85.00	Lawns and garden work
Rubbish removal, gardens and windows	$160.00	Rubbish removal, gardens and windows
Carpet	$200.00	Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$622.00
Bond	$1,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$622.00

Order

Maddison Shirley, Emma Sullivan and Daisy Johanason to pay Irelands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Colin Cameron $622.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (3280263-013) immediately apportioned as follows: Irelands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Colin Cameron: $622.00 Maddison Shirley, Emma Sullivan and Daisy Johanason: $978.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenants did not answer either of the two calls made to each of the three numbers provided to the Tribunal at the scheduled time.
The landlord provided a screenshot of a text message exchange she had with one of the tenants Daisy Johansson, on Friday 24 January 2024. In this exchange Ms Johansson asks why a Tenancy Tribunal hearing has been scheduled, and states that she will not be able to attend. On the basis of this text exchange, I am satisfied this tenant had notice of the hearing and chose not to attend. No requests for an adjournment have been made in relation to this application. The hearing was therefore conducted in the tenants’ absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
At the end of this tenancy the landlord claims the tenant did not mow the lawns, did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all of the rubbish.
The landlord provided oral evidence and photographs that show the lawns hadn’t been mowed, and an invoice for mowing for $85.00. This claim is proved.
The landlord is claiming $320.00 for window cleaning, rubbish removal and gardening. An invoice was produced for this amount, and photographs were also provided showing the condition of the premises at the end of the premises.
Whereas I accept there was more cleaning needed before the premises was re- tenanted, I am not persuaded that this claim is fully proved; the windows for instance are not shown to be below the standard of reasonably clean and tidy, and a further claim for gardening is not substantiated. This claim is partially proved for some further cleaning and rubbish removal.
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.
The landlord claims that during the tenancy a toilet seat was broken and needed to be replaced. The landlord provided an invoice for $198.66. Photographs from the start of tenancy show the toilet seat to be undamaged. Photographs from the end of tenancy show the toilet seat to be missing the lid. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability. I find the damage to be careless.
This claim is proved and the amount awarded takes into account the fact that by the end of the tenancy the toilet seat was at least five years old.
The landlord claims the carpet in bedroom 3 was damaged with a stain the size of an old fifty cent piece, from hair dye. The landlord is claiming $977.00 to replace the carpet in this bedroom. The insurance excess for this claim would have been $3000.00. Oral evidence, photographs and a quotation for $977.00 were provided.
I accept the tenants caused the damage and it is more than fair wear and tear. However I do not consider it reasonable to replace the carpet for the whole room because of this one stain. I do not consider the stain would have caused a reduction in the amount of rent that could be charged, and by the end of the tenancy, the carpet was at least five years old. On the other hand, I accept the landlord has suffered a loss because of the tenants’ carelessness and should be compensated for this.
I find this claim partially proved and I award a lesser amount based on what I consider to be objectively reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord is claiming $85.00 for the replacement of a door handle that they say the tenant replaced during the tenancy because she wanted a door handle with a lock. At the beginning of the subsequent tenancy the door handle broke. An invoice was produced in support of the claim.
The damage was not noticed at the end of the tenancy and I am not persuaded that it can be proved the damage was caused by these tenants. By the time the damage was discovered, workers, other people and the new tenants had all been through the property. This claim is not proved.
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 Irelands Real Estate Limited As Agent For Colin Cameron has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5049028 — Property damage at 14 Tanner Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5049028 — Property damage at 14 Tanner Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

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