What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5061931?

The tribunal order states: Vatrina Crabbe must pay Central West Property Management Limited T/A Lj

How much money was awarded in case 5061931?

Bailiff Costs: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $173.65 awarded to landlord; Ranchslider: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Replace & Paint 2 X Doors: $609.50 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $947.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5061931?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5061931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11391442-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5061931?

The tribunal order states: Vatrina Crabbe must pay Central West Property Management Limited T/A Lj

How much money was awarded in case 5061931?

Bailiff Costs: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $173.65 awarded to landlord; Ranchslider: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Replace & Paint 2 X Doors: $609.50 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $947.60 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5061931?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5061931?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11391442-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 16 Golf Avenue, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5061931 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5061931 — net $2,117.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Bailiff costs	$200.00	Bailiff costs
Rubbish removal	$947.60	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$173.65	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: bathroom vinyl	$230.00	Replace furnishings: bathroom vinyl
Replace & paint 2 x doors	$609.50	Replace & paint 2 x doors
Replace furnishings: carpet	$230.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Rubbish removal: of carpet & vinyl	$250.00	Rubbish removal: of carpet & vinyl
Repairs: ranchslider	$850.00	Repairs: ranchslider
Net award	$2,117.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,117.75

Order

Vatrina Crabbe must pay Central West Property Management Limited T/A Lj Hooker As Agent For Min Trust $2,117.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 (3309110014) to Central West Property Management Limited T/A Lj Hooker As Agent For Min Trust immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Mr Stevens.
There was no appearance at the video hearing from Ms Crabbe and she did not answer calls made to two of her mobile numbers, ending in 840 and 0104. As discussed below I am satisfied that she had been served with the Notice of Hearing which included the video link and contact details, and accordingly did have the ability to attend the hearing Therefore pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Has service been effected?

This tenancy was in place between August 2022 and 26 February 2024. This application was filed in November, therefore more than two months after the end of the tenancy so the usual service rules no longer apply.
Section 91B RTA provides that if a notice is not served in accordance with service provisions and the Tribunal is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the notice the Tribunal may direct amongst other steps that the hearing proceed as if the application has been served.
Mr Stevens gave evidence that he has emailed Ms Crabbe on the email address she used during the tenancy and has been in contact with her mother. He says Ms Crabbe contacted him this morning aware of the hearing. She said she would text him her phone number so he could provide that to the Tribunal, but she did not.
On this evidence I am satisfied that Ms Crabbe’s email address, that was listed as her email address for service on the tenancy agreement, was an appropriate method of service. Through this Ms Crabbe was made aware of the hearing. She would also have been made aware of the Tribunal’s contact details should she have any difficulties.
Therefore, I am satisfied that Ms Crabbe has been effectively served with these proceedings.

Should bailiff costs be paid?

Pursuant to Tribunal Order [2024] NZTT 4774369 the landlord obtained an eviction warrant to obtain possession of the premise. In doing so they incurred the $200 bailiff costs for which they seek reimbursement now. Given Ms Crabbe did not comply with the Tribunal Order it is just she pay this cost. 1

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 landlord has proven in evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and did not return the keys. There was a considerable amount of rubbish and old furniture left, the property had not been cleaned and keys were not returned.
The amounts ordered are proven and considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for the following damage: a. Ranch slider that had panes of glass broken and had been forcibly entered rendering it unusable. b. The door to the bathroom had been repeatedly scratched by the dog to the extent it had to be replaced. c. A cupboard door had been graffitied. d. The vinyl in the bathroom had been dug up by the dog. e. Two walls had been damaged. f. The carpet had been stained to the extent that it required replacement.
To be successful in such compensation 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. 1 See page 3 of the Order: Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
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.
The landlord’s insurance company rejected these claims as they considered all the damage was intentionally caused and their policy did not cover intentional damage. The weekly rent was $350, and the insurance excess was $750. Therefore all claims are below the maximum awardable.
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.
Having considered the evidence provided I find it proven that the damage occurred during the tenancy and make the following findings: a. I am satisfied that the damage to the ranch slider was of such extent that it is clear it was intentionally committed. Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the full cost. b. The damage to the bathroom door and vinyl in the bathroom was so extensive that it would have taken the dog some time. It was therefore noticeable and given the tenant took no steps to stop the dog, I consider it intentional damage. The tenant is therefore liable for the full claim. c. The graffitied cupboard door was clearly intentionally damage and as such the claim is accepted. d. The evidence is not sufficient to establish that careless or intentional damage had ocurred to the walls over and above fair wear and tear. It is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear. As far as walls are concerned, it would be expected there would be some minor damage such as scrapes, marks or even minor holes when hanging pictures and the like. That is an incident of people living in the premises, and that damage (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives. The photos do not establish damage in excess of fair wear and tear to the civil evidential standard of the balance of probabilities. This claim is dismissed. e. The carpet had been stained which I find is careless damage based on the photographic evidence for which the tenant is also liable.
In determining the compensation payable for the vinyl and carpet replacement, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that.
The landlord was not aware of the age of the vinyl and carpet but says they were slightly dated but in reasonable condition. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the life of carpets and vinyl in a rental property is approximately 10 years. Given the age of the rest of the house and fittings I would expect these items to have exceeded their expected lifespan.
However, I also accept that the carpet and vinyl were nevertheless in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy and should have had a few extra years left. On that basis, I have awarded the landlord approximately 20% of the replacement cost as compensation for the damage.
Because Central West Property Management Limited T/A Lj Hooker As Agent For Min Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5061931 — net $2,117.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Bailiff costs	$200.00	Bailiff costs
Rubbish removal	$947.60	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$173.65	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: bathroom vinyl	$230.00	Replace furnishings: bathroom vinyl
Replace & paint 2 x doors	$609.50	Replace & paint 2 x doors
Replace furnishings: carpet	$230.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Rubbish removal: of carpet & vinyl	$250.00	Rubbish removal: of carpet & vinyl
Repairs: ranchslider	$850.00	Repairs: ranchslider
Net award	$2,117.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,117.75

Order

Vatrina Crabbe must pay Central West Property Management Limited T/A Lj Hooker As Agent For Min Trust $2,117.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 (3309110014) to Central West Property Management Limited T/A Lj Hooker As Agent For Min Trust immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Mr Stevens.
There was no appearance at the video hearing from Ms Crabbe and she did not answer calls made to two of her mobile numbers, ending in 840 and 0104. As discussed below I am satisfied that she had been served with the Notice of Hearing which included the video link and contact details, and accordingly did have the ability to attend the hearing Therefore pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Has service been effected?

This tenancy was in place between August 2022 and 26 February 2024. This application was filed in November, therefore more than two months after the end of the tenancy so the usual service rules no longer apply.
Section 91B RTA provides that if a notice is not served in accordance with service provisions and the Tribunal is satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to serve the notice the Tribunal may direct amongst other steps that the hearing proceed as if the application has been served.
Mr Stevens gave evidence that he has emailed Ms Crabbe on the email address she used during the tenancy and has been in contact with her mother. He says Ms Crabbe contacted him this morning aware of the hearing. She said she would text him her phone number so he could provide that to the Tribunal, but she did not.
On this evidence I am satisfied that Ms Crabbe’s email address, that was listed as her email address for service on the tenancy agreement, was an appropriate method of service. Through this Ms Crabbe was made aware of the hearing. She would also have been made aware of the Tribunal’s contact details should she have any difficulties.
Therefore, I am satisfied that Ms Crabbe has been effectively served with these proceedings.

Should bailiff costs be paid?

Pursuant to Tribunal Order [2024] NZTT 4774369 the landlord obtained an eviction warrant to obtain possession of the premise. In doing so they incurred the $200 bailiff costs for which they seek reimbursement now. Given Ms Crabbe did not comply with the Tribunal Order it is just she pay this cost. 1

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 landlord has proven in evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and did not return the keys. There was a considerable amount of rubbish and old furniture left, the property had not been cleaned and keys were not returned.
The amounts ordered are proven and considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for the following damage: a. Ranch slider that had panes of glass broken and had been forcibly entered rendering it unusable. b. The door to the bathroom had been repeatedly scratched by the dog to the extent it had to be replaced. c. A cupboard door had been graffitied. d. The vinyl in the bathroom had been dug up by the dog. e. Two walls had been damaged. f. The carpet had been stained to the extent that it required replacement.
To be successful in such compensation 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. 1 See page 3 of the Order: Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
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.
The landlord’s insurance company rejected these claims as they considered all the damage was intentionally caused and their policy did not cover intentional damage. The weekly rent was $350, and the insurance excess was $750. Therefore all claims are below the maximum awardable.
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.
Having considered the evidence provided I find it proven that the damage occurred during the tenancy and make the following findings: a. I am satisfied that the damage to the ranch slider was of such extent that it is clear it was intentionally committed. Accordingly, the tenant is liable for the full cost. b. The damage to the bathroom door and vinyl in the bathroom was so extensive that it would have taken the dog some time. It was therefore noticeable and given the tenant took no steps to stop the dog, I consider it intentional damage. The tenant is therefore liable for the full claim. c. The graffitied cupboard door was clearly intentionally damage and as such the claim is accepted. d. The evidence is not sufficient to establish that careless or intentional damage had ocurred to the walls over and above fair wear and tear. It is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear. As far as walls are concerned, it would be expected there would be some minor damage such as scrapes, marks or even minor holes when hanging pictures and the like. That is an incident of people living in the premises, and that damage (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives. The photos do not establish damage in excess of fair wear and tear to the civil evidential standard of the balance of probabilities. This claim is dismissed. e. The carpet had been stained which I find is careless damage based on the photographic evidence for which the tenant is also liable.
In determining the compensation payable for the vinyl and carpet replacement, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that.
The landlord was not aware of the age of the vinyl and carpet but says they were slightly dated but in reasonable condition. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the life of carpets and vinyl in a rental property is approximately 10 years. Given the age of the rest of the house and fittings I would expect these items to have exceeded their expected lifespan.
However, I also accept that the carpet and vinyl were nevertheless in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy and should have had a few extra years left. On that basis, I have awarded the landlord approximately 20% of the replacement cost as compensation for the damage.
Because Central West Property Management Limited T/A Lj Hooker As Agent For Min Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5061931 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 16 Golf Avenue, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5061931 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 16 Golf Avenue, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has service been effected?

Should bailiff costs be paid?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Has service been effected?

Should bailiff costs be paid?

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