What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5100950?

The tribunal order states: Victoria Lilo must pay Matthew Charlton $4,779.02 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5100950?

Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $368.99 awarded to landlord; Bathroom: $1,997.75 awarded to landlord; Front Door: $533.05 awarded to landlord; Walls: $942.45 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $346.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100950?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11518475-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5100950?

The tribunal order states: Victoria Lilo must pay Matthew Charlton $4,779.02 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5100950?

Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $368.99 awarded to landlord; Bathroom: $1,997.75 awarded to landlord; Front Door: $533.05 awarded to landlord; Walls: $942.45 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $346.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100950?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11518475-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

374 High Street, Dannevirke, Dannevirke 4930 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5100950 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100950 — net $4,779.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$90.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace furnishings: curtains	$346.78	Replace furnishings: curtains
Replace furnishings: carpet	$500.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Repairs: front door	$533.05	Repairs: front door
Repairs: bathroom	$1,997.75	Repairs: bathroom
Repairs: walls	$942.45	Repairs: walls
Window repairs	$368.99	Window repairs
Net award	$4,779.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,779.02

Order

Victoria Lilo must pay Matthew Charlton $4,779.02 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Carpet Cleaning$90.00 Replace furnishings: curtains$346.78 Replace furnishings: carpet$500.00 Repairs: front door$533.05 Repairs: bathroom$1,997.75 Repairs: walls$942.45 Window repairs$368.99 Total award$4,779.02 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,779.02

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person.
The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
In considering the claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that his claim is “more likely than not.” Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, I have referred in this Order only to the most relevant or important evidence. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving the tenant’s claims has been omitted.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85 RTA provides useful guidance as to how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. It directs the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises and to consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms and technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the landlord’s application with this requirement in mind.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord provided photographic evidence that tenant did not leave the carpets reasonably clean and the landlord successfully cleaned some of them.
The tenant accepted that some curtains required replacement at the end of the tenancy.
The amount ordered is proven.
The landlord claimed a sum for smoke alarms missing at the end of the tenancy. He was unable to provide evidence of there being smoke alarms present at the start of te tenancy and the tenant claimed that she provided them. The Tribunal is not persuaded on the evidence before it that the smoke alarms were not installed by the tenant and so the landlord’s claim must fail.

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 landlord provided photographic evidence and invoices for repair for the following damage he claimed was caused during the tenancy: a. There was substantial intentional damage to the walls. b. There was substantial intentional damage to the bathroom walls and fixtures. c. Three windows required repair. d. Some of the carpet was so badly damaged by dirt and other substances that they had to be replaced. Because of the nature and extent of the damage, it is intentional damage. e. The front door hinges, handle and lock were damaged.
The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage to the walls, bathroom and carpets. She claimed to have paid for the repair of windows and doors. She provided various quotations for work in 2023, together with invoices for the repair of windows on 4 September 2023 and 28 October 2023, together with an invoice for the repair of internal doors on 8 June 2024.
The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s photographic and invoice evidence that his claim is for further damaged windows and for damage to the front door, not internal doors.
The landlord claimed that the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy but did not produce any evidence. From the photographic evidence, the carpet looks to have been in good repair at the start of the tenancy. The tenancy lasted nearly 11 years. Under the Inland Revenue Department’s depreciation guidelines state that carpets have only a useful life of eight years. However, the evidence of the landlord, based on the state of the carpet that could be cleaned satisfactorily, is that it still had some residual value. It is appropriate to award a modest sum to reflect that value and that, but for the actions of the tenant, the landlord would not have had to replace the carpet.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100950 — net $4,779.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$90.00	Carpet Cleaning
Replace furnishings: curtains	$346.78	Replace furnishings: curtains
Replace furnishings: carpet	$500.00	Replace furnishings: carpet
Repairs: front door	$533.05	Repairs: front door
Repairs: bathroom	$1,997.75	Repairs: bathroom
Repairs: walls	$942.45	Repairs: walls
Window repairs	$368.99	Window repairs
Net award	$4,779.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,779.02

Order

Victoria Lilo must pay Matthew Charlton $4,779.02 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Carpet Cleaning$90.00 Replace furnishings: curtains$346.78 Replace furnishings: carpet$500.00 Repairs: front door$533.05 Repairs: bathroom$1,997.75 Repairs: walls$942.45 Window repairs$368.99 Total award$4,779.02 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$4,779.02

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person.
The tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
In considering the claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that his claim is “more likely than not.” Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I have not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, I have referred in this Order only to the most relevant or important evidence. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving the tenant’s claims has been omitted.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85 RTA provides useful guidance as to how the Tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction. It directs the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises and to consider the substantial merits and justice of the case without being bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms and technicalities. The Tribunal has determined the landlord’s application with this requirement in mind.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The landlord provided photographic evidence that tenant did not leave the carpets reasonably clean and the landlord successfully cleaned some of them.
The tenant accepted that some curtains required replacement at the end of the tenancy.
The amount ordered is proven.
The landlord claimed a sum for smoke alarms missing at the end of the tenancy. He was unable to provide evidence of there being smoke alarms present at the start of te tenancy and the tenant claimed that she provided them. The Tribunal is not persuaded on the evidence before it that the smoke alarms were not installed by the tenant and so the landlord’s claim must fail.

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 landlord provided photographic evidence and invoices for repair for the following damage he claimed was caused during the tenancy: a. There was substantial intentional damage to the walls. b. There was substantial intentional damage to the bathroom walls and fixtures. c. Three windows required repair. d. Some of the carpet was so badly damaged by dirt and other substances that they had to be replaced. Because of the nature and extent of the damage, it is intentional damage. e. The front door hinges, handle and lock were damaged.
The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage to the walls, bathroom and carpets. She claimed to have paid for the repair of windows and doors. She provided various quotations for work in 2023, together with invoices for the repair of windows on 4 September 2023 and 28 October 2023, together with an invoice for the repair of internal doors on 8 June 2024.
The Tribunal accepts the landlord’s photographic and invoice evidence that his claim is for further damaged windows and for damage to the front door, not internal doors.
The landlord claimed that the carpet was new at the start of the tenancy but did not produce any evidence. From the photographic evidence, the carpet looks to have been in good repair at the start of the tenancy. The tenancy lasted nearly 11 years. Under the Inland Revenue Department’s depreciation guidelines state that carpets have only a useful life of eight years. However, the evidence of the landlord, based on the state of the carpet that could be cleaned satisfactorily, is that it still had some residual value. It is appropriate to award a modest sum to reflect that value and that, but for the actions of the tenant, the landlord would not have had to replace the carpet.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100950 — Property damage at 374 High Street, Dannevirke, Dannevirke 4930

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100950 — Property damage at 374 High Street, Dannevirke, Dannevirke 4930

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

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

Frequently asked questions