What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5101953?

The tribunal order states: Chantal Taylor must pay Max Property Management (Mpm) Limited as Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5101953?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $242.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $770.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $265.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5101953?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5101953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11584271-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5101953?

The tribunal order states: Chantal Taylor must pay Max Property Management (Mpm) Limited as Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5101953?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $242.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $770.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $265.82 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5101953?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5101953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11584271-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 38 Aberdeen Street, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5101953 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5101953 — net $490.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20/9/24	$242.15	Rent arrears to 20/9/24
Cleaning	$320.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$300.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$265.82	Rubbish removal
Repairs: - carpet damage - (insurance excess	$400.00	Repairs: - carpet damage - (insurance excess
Repairs: - wall damage	$770.50	Repairs: - wall damage
Repair - wardrobe shelf	$345.00	Repair - wardrobe shelf
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	andlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00. Suppression
Lock/key replacement	$20.00	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$490.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$490.47

Order

Chantal Taylor must pay Max Property Management (Mpm) Limited as Agent For Siva And Manu Nagarajan $490.47 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 6 April 2022 and relates to a 2-bedroom home in Central Christchurch. Landlord’s claims
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord had arranged to be paid the bond from the Bond Centre without consent of the tenant. The landlord claimed compensation in excess of the bond.
Given the tenant disputed that the landlord was entitled to the bond, with consent of both parties I determined the landlord’s claims in respect of the bond in full. Tenant’s claims
This is a cross application; however, the tenant’s claim was filed in defence of the landlord’s claim and not for further orders against the landlord. The tenant’s application is dismissed for the reasons outlined below. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”.
Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that:... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant gave notice and the tenancy was to end on 17 September 2024, however the tenant did not vacate the premises until 20 September 2024.
The tenancy therefore ended on 20 September 2024.
The landlord claimed rent arrears until 22 September 2024 on the basis that the premises could not be occupied for at least the two days after 20 September 2024 as a result of the tenant leaving the premises unclean and not removing her rubbish.
I consider the tenant was not occupying the premises on 21 and 22 September 2024 and did not have possession of the premises therefore she is not liable for rent arrears.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and I make an order for rent arrears to 20 September 2024 of $242.15.

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. 1
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord’s evidence was that the property was dirty throughout, that the carpets were dirty and stained, that surfaces and walls were dirty and marked and that there was rubbish that required removal.
The landlord provided inspection reports from end of the tenancy, photographs and invoices to support the claim.
Rubbish removal and general cleaning was therefore required. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In relation to the carpet cleaning, the landlord said the amount invoiced exceeded the original quote as the strong odour from the tenant’s pet in the top bedroom and lounge meant the carpet required additional cleaning and deodorising.
The tenant largely accepted cleaning was required but disputed the amount claimed.
I have made an order for the full amount claimed for cleaning of $320 for general cleaning and $300 for carpet cleaning. The landlord provided an additional invoice to show that the landlord attended to additional cleaning to enable the property to be clean for the next tenants. I consider the cleaning amounts claimed therefore did not clean the premises beyond that of reasonably clean and tidy and I make an order for the full amount claimed.
The make an order for the amount claimed for rubbish removal of $265.82 by consent.
The tenant did not return the keys for the mailbox. The amount claimed is $20.00 which is part of the invoice provided to replace two mailbox keys. The landlord has to replace the keys though the letter box designer as they did not have one key to use to cut further keys. The tenant accepted she did not return the mailbox key but disputed the quantum. The landlord has provided an invoice in support of the claim and the amount claimed is reasonable. I make an order for the full amount claimed.
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. 2
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 3
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 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 3 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 4
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). 5 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 6
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. 7
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. 8
I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The premises was new at the start of the tenancy.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet damage
The carpet was damaged with the tenant dropping a candle and superglue onto it. The invoice to replace the carpet was for $1,380.00.
I consider the damage likely to have been from carelessness by the tenant and make an order for the amount claimed of $400.00. Wardrobe shelf damage
The wardrobe shelf was damaged. The tenant accepted her daughter damaged the shelf. She disputed the amount claimed. The landlord has provided an invoice and photographs of the damage and I make an order for the amount claimed of $345.00, which is for the repair of the one broken shelf. I make no 4 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 5 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 7 See section 49B(1) RTA. 8 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541 deduction for betterment and depreciation and the amount claimed is for a repair to the damage shelf only. Wall damage
The walls were damaged throughout. The landlord said that the amount claim was for wall damage which the landlord considered to have been caused carelessly and that there was other wall damage that they accept was caused by fair wear and tear (that is, through normal use), which they have not included in the claim.
I consider the damage likely to have been caused carelessly, given the extent of the damage of various corners and walls of the premises.
I accept that if an insurance claim were made there would be a number of excesses payable for the different events and areas of damage. The amount claimed does not exceed the amount of two insurance excesses, which I consider is reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage to the wall.
I make an order for the full amount claimed of $770.50.
I make no deduction for betterment and depreciation and the amount claimed is for wall repairs to the damaged areas only.
The amounts ordered are not above the statutory maximum for careless damage, being the insurance excess amount of $400.00.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00. Suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression however having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest I do not order name suppression for the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5101953 — net $490.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20/9/24	$242.15	Rent arrears to 20/9/24
Cleaning	$320.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$300.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$265.82	Rubbish removal
Repairs: - carpet damage - (insurance excess	$400.00	Repairs: - carpet damage - (insurance excess
Repairs: - wall damage	$770.50	Repairs: - wall damage
Repair - wardrobe shelf	$345.00	Repair - wardrobe shelf
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	andlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00. Suppression
Lock/key replacement	$20.00	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$490.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$490.47

Order

Chantal Taylor must pay Max Property Management (Mpm) Limited as Agent For Siva And Manu Nagarajan $490.47 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 6 April 2022 and relates to a 2-bedroom home in Central Christchurch. Landlord’s claims
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord had arranged to be paid the bond from the Bond Centre without consent of the tenant. The landlord claimed compensation in excess of the bond.
Given the tenant disputed that the landlord was entitled to the bond, with consent of both parties I determined the landlord’s claims in respect of the bond in full. Tenant’s claims
This is a cross application; however, the tenant’s claim was filed in defence of the landlord’s claim and not for further orders against the landlord. The tenant’s application is dismissed for the reasons outlined below. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”.
Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that:... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenant gave notice and the tenancy was to end on 17 September 2024, however the tenant did not vacate the premises until 20 September 2024.
The tenancy therefore ended on 20 September 2024.
The landlord claimed rent arrears until 22 September 2024 on the basis that the premises could not be occupied for at least the two days after 20 September 2024 as a result of the tenant leaving the premises unclean and not removing her rubbish.
I consider the tenant was not occupying the premises on 21 and 22 September 2024 and did not have possession of the premises therefore she is not liable for rent arrears.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and I make an order for rent arrears to 20 September 2024 of $242.15.

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. 1
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord’s evidence was that the property was dirty throughout, that the carpets were dirty and stained, that surfaces and walls were dirty and marked and that there was rubbish that required removal.
The landlord provided inspection reports from end of the tenancy, photographs and invoices to support the claim.
Rubbish removal and general cleaning was therefore required. 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In relation to the carpet cleaning, the landlord said the amount invoiced exceeded the original quote as the strong odour from the tenant’s pet in the top bedroom and lounge meant the carpet required additional cleaning and deodorising.
The tenant largely accepted cleaning was required but disputed the amount claimed.
I have made an order for the full amount claimed for cleaning of $320 for general cleaning and $300 for carpet cleaning. The landlord provided an additional invoice to show that the landlord attended to additional cleaning to enable the property to be clean for the next tenants. I consider the cleaning amounts claimed therefore did not clean the premises beyond that of reasonably clean and tidy and I make an order for the full amount claimed.
The make an order for the amount claimed for rubbish removal of $265.82 by consent.
The tenant did not return the keys for the mailbox. The amount claimed is $20.00 which is part of the invoice provided to replace two mailbox keys. The landlord has to replace the keys though the letter box designer as they did not have one key to use to cut further keys. The tenant accepted she did not return the mailbox key but disputed the quantum. The landlord has provided an invoice in support of the claim and the amount claimed is reasonable. I make an order for the full amount claimed.
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. 2
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 3
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 2 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 3 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 4
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). 5 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 6
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. 7
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. 8
I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The premises was new at the start of the tenancy.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Carpet damage
The carpet was damaged with the tenant dropping a candle and superglue onto it. The invoice to replace the carpet was for $1,380.00.
I consider the damage likely to have been from carelessness by the tenant and make an order for the amount claimed of $400.00. Wardrobe shelf damage
The wardrobe shelf was damaged. The tenant accepted her daughter damaged the shelf. She disputed the amount claimed. The landlord has provided an invoice and photographs of the damage and I make an order for the amount claimed of $345.00, which is for the repair of the one broken shelf. I make no 4 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 5 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 7 See section 49B(1) RTA. 8 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541 deduction for betterment and depreciation and the amount claimed is for a repair to the damage shelf only. Wall damage
The walls were damaged throughout. The landlord said that the amount claim was for wall damage which the landlord considered to have been caused carelessly and that there was other wall damage that they accept was caused by fair wear and tear (that is, through normal use), which they have not included in the claim.
I consider the damage likely to have been caused carelessly, given the extent of the damage of various corners and walls of the premises.
I accept that if an insurance claim were made there would be a number of excesses payable for the different events and areas of damage. The amount claimed does not exceed the amount of two insurance excesses, which I consider is reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage to the wall.
I make an order for the full amount claimed of $770.50.
I make no deduction for betterment and depreciation and the amount claimed is for wall repairs to the damaged areas only.
The amounts ordered are not above the statutory maximum for careless damage, being the insurance excess amount of $400.00.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00. Suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant sought name suppression however having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest I do not order name suppression for the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5101953 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 7, 38 Aberdeen Street, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5101953 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 7, 38 Aberdeen Street, Christchurch Central,

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