What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5094070?

The tribunal order states: Billie-Jo Williams must pay Online Rentals Limited (T/A Ray White Hamilton) -

How much money was awarded in case 5094070?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $331.20 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $238.81 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $34.50 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5046451 D…: $1,089.86 awarded to landlord; To Carpet: $242.40 awarded to landlord; To Exterior Cladding: $261.62 awarded to landlord; To Kitchen Floor: $1,017.75 awarded to landlord; To Trellis, Doors: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $241.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5094070?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5094070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11595188-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5094070?

The tribunal order states: Billie-Jo Williams must pay Online Rentals Limited (T/A Ray White Hamilton) -

How much money was awarded in case 5094070?

Cleaning: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $331.20 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $238.81 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $34.50 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5046451 D…: $1,089.86 awarded to landlord; To Carpet: $242.40 awarded to landlord; To Exterior Cladding: $261.62 awarded to landlord; To Kitchen Floor: $1,017.75 awarded to landlord; To Trellis, Doors: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $241.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5094070?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5094070?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11595188-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

227A Fox Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5094070 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5094070 — net $4,064.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5046451 dated 04/11/2024	$1,089.86	Previous order application 5046451 dated 04/11/2024
Carpet Cleaning	$280.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$331.20	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$241.50	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$34.50	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: to kitchen floor	$1,017.75	Repairs: to kitchen floor
replacement vinyl to kitchen floor	$238.81	replacement vinyl to kitchen floor
Repairs: to exterior cladding	$261.62	Repairs: to exterior cladding
Repairs: to carpet	$242.40	Repairs: to carpet
Repairs: to trellis, doors	$300.00	Repairs: to trellis, doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,064.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,064.64

Order

Billie-Jo Williams must pay Online Rentals Limited (T/A Ray White Hamilton) - As Agent T & T Property Investments Ltd $4,064.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 4 November 2024 under application 5046451.

Reasons

Ms Denison, for landlord, and Miss Williams (tenant) both attended the in-person hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 27 November 2020 and ended on 2 November 2024 as a result of the Tribunal terminating the tenancy for rent arrears.
The premises is a 5 bedroomed property. The tenancy agreement records that a maximum of 6 people can live in the premises. Ms Williams lived at the premises with 4 of her children; her partner lived there from time to time. 5.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord was awarded rent arrears in a previous Tribunal order. As explained at the hearing the Tribunal cannot consider and determine the same claim a second time. I have considered the claim for rent arrears as an application to incorporate the previous order for rent arrears into this order. The landlord confirmed that it has not enforced of the previous order.
On 4 November 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 2 November 2024 and for reimbursement of the filing fee for that application. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish and belongings. The evidence establishes that the carpet required cleaning and the lawn needed mowing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant questioned her liability for the flea bomb application. She acknowledged that dogs owned by her whanau spent time at the property during the day, but said they did not live there or go inside. However the photograph provided by the landlord of dogs at the premises shows the exterior door open and no barrier to exclude the dogs entry in place. I find it more likely than not that they did enter inside the premises. The cost of the flea bomb ($37.95) is accordingly awarded.
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. The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the party making the claim must establish with evidence that what is claimed is proven to be “more probable than not” or “more likely than not”, including the amount they are claiming. 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: Kitchen floor damage and replacement of vinyl:
The tenant accepts her fridge leaked and caused damage to the particleboard floor underneath it and the vinyl. The tenant realised the fridge was leaking and the floor was damaged and attempted to silicone the gap caused by the floor sagging. The landlord claims the cost to repair the floor ($1,017.75) and to replace the vinyl ($796.03).
When the tenant said that when she first realised the fridge was leaking she did not notice that the leak was damaging the floor and the vinyl. When she did realise damage was occurring she did not tell the landlord, as she was required to 1 , and attempted to remedy by applying silicon to the gap in the floor. I find the damage was intentional as the fridge continued to leak and cause damage after the tenant became aware of the leak. I find the tenant is liable for the cost claimed to repair the floor.
I am satisfied the vinyl under the fridge was damaged as a result of the leak, however the landlord would be in a better position if the total cost of replacing the vinyl in the kitchen is awarded. 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 find vinyl has around a 10 year life span in tenancy premises. The landlord has not provided the pre-tenancy inspection/condition report with its application or provided evidence of the age of the existing viny, other than it was in the premises at the start of this tenancy. A photograph of a part of the vinyl flooring in the kitchen, taken at the start of the tenancy, was provided by the property manager. The photo established the area in the photograph was in reasonable condition.
The tenant’s view is that the vinyl was worn under the dishwasher at the start of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied the vinyl was new at the start of this tenancy, which was for 4 years. Based on the evidence presented I find it reasonable to award one-third of the cost to replace the vinyl. I consider the cost of patching, as an alternative remedy to replacing the entire floor at a depreciated sum, would be around the same cost. Damage to exterior cladding.
The tenant accepts the damage to the exterior cladding was caused when she and her whanau were shifting out of the tenancy. I find the tenant is liable to pay the cost claimed as they are reasonable for the repair required. Burns and marks to the carpet.
The landlord claims $404.00 for repairing five separate areas of the carpet. Four repairs are for burns or marks/stains to the carpet and the other repair is where a join in the carpet between a hallway and a bedroom has failed. The landlord said the tenant replaced the door where the join failed, that the door was slightly too long and dragged on the carpet which caused the stitching to unravel.
The tenant accepts the two burn marks were caused during the tenancy. She says the other two marks were there at the start of the tenancy and were recorded on the pre-tenancy condition report. The tenant’s evidence is that all of 1 See section 40(1)(d), RTA the doors dragged on the carpet and that the join being claimed for had started to come apart at the start of the tenancy.
From the evidence presented I find the tenant is liable for the repairs to the burn marks and the join in the carpet between the bedroom and the hall. In relation to the latter I find that as there is no evidence supporting any of the other doors created similar damage, I am persuaded that the damage was caused by the replacement door being too low and dragging on the carpet.
As stated above, the landlord has failed to provide the pre-tenancy condition report or photographs taken when the tenancy started of the same areas where the other marks/stains on the carpet are located. I find the tenant’s evidence is credible that the other two marks were there at the start of the tenancy.
The invoice does not detail individual costs to repair each area of damage. I find the reasonable method to determine the amount of compensation the tenant is liable for is to award 3/5ths of the cost claimed, being $242.40. Repair to trellis and hinge on front gate; repair doors where locks were; install seratone over the hole where a recessed soap holder had been
The landlord claims $414.00 for the above work.
I find the repair to the hinge is probably a result of fair wear and tear, rather than careless or intentional damage caused by the tenant.
The trellis was missing two horizontal slats. The tenant confirmed that her children did climb over the fence. I find the slats have probably come off as a result. I find this to be careless damage.
The tenant accepts that the latches in three doors were removed during the tenancy along with the strike plates in the door frames. The tenant is liable for the cost to repair this intentional damage.
The landlord claims the cost of installing a piece of seratone over the hole where a recessed soap holder had been in the shower. The landlord has not provided any evidence establishing the condition of the soap holder area at the start of the tenancy. The tenant says the soap holder was already removed before the tenancy commenced and that a piece of plastic had been glued over the hole, which fell off during the tenancy. The tenant said she told the landlord this had happened at an inspection. From the evidence I find the landlord has not proven this is damage caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenant during the tenancy.
The invoice for this work does not include a break down of the individual costs for each repair. I find the repairs to the three doors are likely to comprise the majority of the invoiced sum. In the absence of a breakdown of costs I award $300.00 for the repairs to the doors and the trellis.
As the landlord been mainly successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5094070 — net $4,064.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5046451 dated 04/11/2024	$1,089.86	Previous order application 5046451 dated 04/11/2024
Carpet Cleaning	$280.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$331.20	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$241.50	Rubbish removal
Lawns and Garden work	$34.50	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: to kitchen floor	$1,017.75	Repairs: to kitchen floor
replacement vinyl to kitchen floor	$238.81	replacement vinyl to kitchen floor
Repairs: to exterior cladding	$261.62	Repairs: to exterior cladding
Repairs: to carpet	$242.40	Repairs: to carpet
Repairs: to trellis, doors	$300.00	Repairs: to trellis, doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,064.64
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,064.64

Order

Billie-Jo Williams must pay Online Rentals Limited (T/A Ray White Hamilton) - As Agent T & T Property Investments Ltd $4,064.64 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 4 November 2024 under application 5046451.

Reasons

Ms Denison, for landlord, and Miss Williams (tenant) both attended the in-person hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 27 November 2020 and ended on 2 November 2024 as a result of the Tribunal terminating the tenancy for rent arrears.
The premises is a 5 bedroomed property. The tenancy agreement records that a maximum of 6 people can live in the premises. Ms Williams lived at the premises with 4 of her children; her partner lived there from time to time. 5.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord was awarded rent arrears in a previous Tribunal order. As explained at the hearing the Tribunal cannot consider and determine the same claim a second time. I have considered the claim for rent arrears as an application to incorporate the previous order for rent arrears into this order. The landlord confirmed that it has not enforced of the previous order.
On 4 November 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 2 November 2024 and for reimbursement of the filing fee for that application. 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish and belongings. The evidence establishes that the carpet required cleaning and the lawn needed mowing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant questioned her liability for the flea bomb application. She acknowledged that dogs owned by her whanau spent time at the property during the day, but said they did not live there or go inside. However the photograph provided by the landlord of dogs at the premises shows the exterior door open and no barrier to exclude the dogs entry in place. I find it more likely than not that they did enter inside the premises. The cost of the flea bomb ($37.95) is accordingly awarded.
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. The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the party making the claim must establish with evidence that what is claimed is proven to be “more probable than not” or “more likely than not”, including the amount they are claiming. 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: Kitchen floor damage and replacement of vinyl:
The tenant accepts her fridge leaked and caused damage to the particleboard floor underneath it and the vinyl. The tenant realised the fridge was leaking and the floor was damaged and attempted to silicone the gap caused by the floor sagging. The landlord claims the cost to repair the floor ($1,017.75) and to replace the vinyl ($796.03).
When the tenant said that when she first realised the fridge was leaking she did not notice that the leak was damaging the floor and the vinyl. When she did realise damage was occurring she did not tell the landlord, as she was required to 1 , and attempted to remedy by applying silicon to the gap in the floor. I find the damage was intentional as the fridge continued to leak and cause damage after the tenant became aware of the leak. I find the tenant is liable for the cost claimed to repair the floor.
I am satisfied the vinyl under the fridge was damaged as a result of the leak, however the landlord would be in a better position if the total cost of replacing the vinyl in the kitchen is awarded. 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 find vinyl has around a 10 year life span in tenancy premises. The landlord has not provided the pre-tenancy inspection/condition report with its application or provided evidence of the age of the existing viny, other than it was in the premises at the start of this tenancy. A photograph of a part of the vinyl flooring in the kitchen, taken at the start of the tenancy, was provided by the property manager. The photo established the area in the photograph was in reasonable condition.
The tenant’s view is that the vinyl was worn under the dishwasher at the start of the tenancy.
I am not satisfied the vinyl was new at the start of this tenancy, which was for 4 years. Based on the evidence presented I find it reasonable to award one-third of the cost to replace the vinyl. I consider the cost of patching, as an alternative remedy to replacing the entire floor at a depreciated sum, would be around the same cost. Damage to exterior cladding.
The tenant accepts the damage to the exterior cladding was caused when she and her whanau were shifting out of the tenancy. I find the tenant is liable to pay the cost claimed as they are reasonable for the repair required. Burns and marks to the carpet.
The landlord claims $404.00 for repairing five separate areas of the carpet. Four repairs are for burns or marks/stains to the carpet and the other repair is where a join in the carpet between a hallway and a bedroom has failed. The landlord said the tenant replaced the door where the join failed, that the door was slightly too long and dragged on the carpet which caused the stitching to unravel.
The tenant accepts the two burn marks were caused during the tenancy. She says the other two marks were there at the start of the tenancy and were recorded on the pre-tenancy condition report. The tenant’s evidence is that all of 1 See section 40(1)(d), RTA the doors dragged on the carpet and that the join being claimed for had started to come apart at the start of the tenancy.
From the evidence presented I find the tenant is liable for the repairs to the burn marks and the join in the carpet between the bedroom and the hall. In relation to the latter I find that as there is no evidence supporting any of the other doors created similar damage, I am persuaded that the damage was caused by the replacement door being too low and dragging on the carpet.
As stated above, the landlord has failed to provide the pre-tenancy condition report or photographs taken when the tenancy started of the same areas where the other marks/stains on the carpet are located. I find the tenant’s evidence is credible that the other two marks were there at the start of the tenancy.
The invoice does not detail individual costs to repair each area of damage. I find the reasonable method to determine the amount of compensation the tenant is liable for is to award 3/5ths of the cost claimed, being $242.40. Repair to trellis and hinge on front gate; repair doors where locks were; install seratone over the hole where a recessed soap holder had been
The landlord claims $414.00 for the above work.
I find the repair to the hinge is probably a result of fair wear and tear, rather than careless or intentional damage caused by the tenant.
The trellis was missing two horizontal slats. The tenant confirmed that her children did climb over the fence. I find the slats have probably come off as a result. I find this to be careless damage.
The tenant accepts that the latches in three doors were removed during the tenancy along with the strike plates in the door frames. The tenant is liable for the cost to repair this intentional damage.
The landlord claims the cost of installing a piece of seratone over the hole where a recessed soap holder had been in the shower. The landlord has not provided any evidence establishing the condition of the soap holder area at the start of the tenancy. The tenant says the soap holder was already removed before the tenancy commenced and that a piece of plastic had been glued over the hole, which fell off during the tenancy. The tenant said she told the landlord this had happened at an inspection. From the evidence I find the landlord has not proven this is damage caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenant during the tenancy.
The invoice for this work does not include a break down of the individual costs for each repair. I find the repairs to the three doors are likely to comprise the majority of the invoiced sum. In the absence of a breakdown of costs I award $300.00 for the repairs to the doors and the trellis.
As the landlord been mainly successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5094070 — Property damage at 227A Fox Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5094070 — Property damage at 227A Fox Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

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