What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5118656?

The tribunal order states: Tusi Visesio and Mere Visesio must pay Lesley Joan Sceats $7,040.00

How much money was awarded in case 5118656?

Cleaning: $1,020.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5118656 D…: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $308.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,040.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Kitchen Linoleum: $580.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Stove: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Secure Premises: $645.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118656?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118656?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11637589-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5118656?

The tribunal order states: Tusi Visesio and Mere Visesio must pay Lesley Joan Sceats $7,040.00

How much money was awarded in case 5118656?

Cleaning: $1,020.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5118656 D…: $270.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $308.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,040.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Kitchen Linoleum: $580.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Stove: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Secure Premises: $645.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118656?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118656?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11637589-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Scarborough Road, Flaxmere, Hastings 4120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5118656 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5118656. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5118656 dated 20/02/2025	$270.00	Previous order application 5118656 dated 20/02/2025
Cleaning	$1,020.00	Cleaning
Replace stove	$500.00	Replace stove
Secure premises	$645.00	Secure premises
Replace kitchen linoleum	$580.00	Replace kitchen linoleum
Carpet replacement	$2,000.00	Carpet replacement
Garage repair	$400.00	Garage repair
Door repair	$308.00	Door repair
Kitchen repairs	$1,040.00	Kitchen repairs
Bathroom repair	$250.00	Bathroom repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenants were unable to be contacted on the phone number specified in the Notice of Hearing.

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

A hearing was held on 20 February 2025 which determined the rent arrears owing and ordered payment of the bond to the landlord.

The hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord to explore insurance claims for damage to the premises.

The landlord has provided evidence from the insurer to show that it would not be feasible to make a claim because the insurer assessed 11 discrete damage events, with an excess of $1,250.00 payable for each.

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.

Photographs provided by the landlord from the end of the tenancy show that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The photographs show the premises in a very unclean condition. A statement from the cleaner corroborates the landlord evidence about its poor condition.

The sums claimed are proved by the invoice provided and a modest allowance is included for time spent by the landlord toward bringing the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

The premises were not left secured. The landlord paid to have temporary work done to enable it to be secured. The landlord is entitled to be reimbursed the cost of doing so, which is proved by the invoices provided.

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 photographs provided by the landlord show that: a. linoleum floors that were new at the start of the tenancy were scratched and torn to the point they needed to be replaced; b. carpets that were new at the start of the tenancy were heavily soiled to the point that they could not be cleaned and needed to be replaced, as confirmed by the cleaner’s assessment; c. there were holes in doors that needed to be filled and resurfaced; d. the exterior cladding and spouting/ downpipes of the garage were damaged; e. the oven had been removed; f. the ceiling in the kitchen was damaged g. wall linings and accessories in the bathroom were damaged

The amounts ordered are proved by third party invoices provided.

The landlord should be returned to the position she would have been in had the tenants 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.

In particular, allowance is made for the age of floor coverings (new at the start of the premises). The claim for stove replacement is limited to the sum offered as compensation by the tenants during the tenancy.

Much of the damage was categorised by the insurance assessor as accidental. In terms of the approach illustrated in Guo (above), damage such as that caused to the carpets, the bathroom, the stove, the doors, the holes drilled in door jambs, if not directly intended, should be seen as intentional, as being damage which the tenants must have known would result from the way in which the premises were treated. That being so, I find that the limit to the tenants’ liability under s.49B(3)(b) RTA does not preclude the landlord’s claims.

Because Lesley Joan Sceats has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5118656. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5118656 dated 20/02/2025	$270.00	Previous order application 5118656 dated 20/02/2025
Cleaning	$1,020.00	Cleaning
Replace stove	$500.00	Replace stove
Secure premises	$645.00	Secure premises
Replace kitchen linoleum	$580.00	Replace kitchen linoleum
Carpet replacement	$2,000.00	Carpet replacement
Garage repair	$400.00	Garage repair
Door repair	$308.00	Door repair
Kitchen repairs	$1,040.00	Kitchen repairs
Bathroom repair	$250.00	Bathroom repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

Tusi Visesio and Mere Visesio must pay Lesley Joan Sceats $7,040.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This Order supersedes and replaces the Tribunal’s Order made in these proceedings dated 20 February 2025

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The tenants were unable to be contacted on the phone number specified in the Notice of Hearing.
The landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A hearing was held on 20 February 2025 which determined the rent arrears owing and ordered payment of the bond to the landlord.
The hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord to explore insurance claims for damage to the premises.
The landlord has provided evidence from the insurer to show that it would not be feasible to make a claim because the insurer assessed 11 discrete damage events, with an excess of $1,250.00 payable for each.

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.
Photographs provided by the landlord from the end of the tenancy show that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The photographs show the premises in a very unclean condition. A statement from the cleaner corroborates the landlord evidence about its poor condition.
The sums claimed are proved by the invoice provided and a modest allowance is included for time spent by the landlord toward bringing the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The premises were not left secured. The landlord paid to have temporary work done to enable it to be secured. The landlord is entitled to be reimbursed the cost of doing so, which is proved by the invoices provided.

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 photographs provided by the landlord show that: a. linoleum floors that were new at the start of the tenancy were scratched and torn to the point they needed to be replaced; b. carpets that were new at the start of the tenancy were heavily soiled to the point that they could not be cleaned and needed to be replaced, as confirmed by the cleaner’s assessment; c. there were holes in doors that needed to be filled and resurfaced; d. the exterior cladding and spouting/ downpipes of the garage were damaged; e. the oven had been removed; f. the ceiling in the kitchen was damaged g. wall linings and accessories in the bathroom were damaged
The amounts ordered are proved by third party invoices provided.
The landlord should be returned to the position she would have been in had the tenants 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.
In particular, allowance is made for the age of floor coverings (new at the start of the premises). The claim for stove replacement is limited to the sum offered as compensation by the tenants during the tenancy.
Much of the damage was categorised by the insurance assessor as accidental. In terms of the approach illustrated in Guo (above), damage such as that caused to the carpets, the bathroom, the stove, the doors, the holes drilled in door jambs, if not directly intended, should be seen as intentional, as being damage which the tenants must have known would result from the way in which the premises were treated. That being so, I find that the limit to the tenants’ liability under s.49B(3)(b) RTA does not preclude the landlord’s claims.
Because Lesley Joan Sceats has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118656 — Property damage at 10 Scarborough Road, Flaxmere, Hastings 4120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118656 — Property damage at 10 Scarborough Road, Flaxmere, Hastings 4120

At a glance

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

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