What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5129415?

The tribunal order states: Amy Lyons must pay Homely Property Management Limited $2,806.83

How much money was awarded in case 5129415?

Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,133.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,281.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5129415?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5129415?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11435190-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5129415?

The tribunal order states: Amy Lyons must pay Homely Property Management Limited $2,806.83

How much money was awarded in case 5129415?

Cleaning: $360.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,133.90 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,281.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5129415?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5129415?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11435190-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

66 Manawatu Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5129415 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5129415 — net $2,806.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,281.43	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$1,133.90	Lock/key replacement
Carpet Cleaning	$360.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: rubbish removal	$264.50	Cleaning: rubbish removal
Repairs: wall damage	$2,500.00	Repairs: wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,806.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,806.83

Amy Lyons must pay Homely Property Management Limited $2,806.83 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 (6310440-026) to Homely Property Management Limited immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,281.43 Lock/key replacement$1,133.90 Carpet Cleaning$360.00 Cleaning: rubbish removal$264.50 Repairs: wall damage$2,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$5,566.83 Bond$2,760.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,806.83

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The tenant had notified the landlord by text on the morning of the hearing that she was seeking an adjournment because she had filed a cross-application that morning.

If the tenant had made an application for adjournment, it would not have been granted. Given the nature of the landlord’s claims, it is not necessary that the tenant’s claims be heard together.

Once the tenant’s application is received, a further hearing will be necessary to hear her claims.

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

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 November 2024. A prior order 4959573 dated 27 August 2024 had awarded the landlord rent arrears to 30 August 2024.

The landlord provided rent records for the period after that date to termination. It recorded that the rent for the period 12 October to 18 October was $1,380.00. This is in correct and the correct figure was $690.00. The amount claimed has therefore been reduced by $690.00.

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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The photographic evidence showed that the carpets had been stained and the landlord advised that the tenant had a dog at the property throughout the tenancy.

The tenant did not return the keys.

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. 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 that there were numerous cuts or dents in a wall in the hallway, two walls in the main bedroom and one wall in the living space. They had been poorly patched with plaster and required repair to a professional standard. By its nature and extent, the damage was intentional damage.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have considered 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. The landlord advised that the walls had been freshly painted in 2020. A small reduction in the amount claimed has been made to reflect that the wall painting was two years old and not brand new at the start of the tenancy.

Because Homely Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5129415 — net $2,806.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,281.43	Rent arrears
Lock/key replacement	$1,133.90	Lock/key replacement
Carpet Cleaning	$360.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: rubbish removal	$264.50	Cleaning: rubbish removal
Repairs: wall damage	$2,500.00	Repairs: wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,806.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,806.83

Order

Amy Lyons must pay Homely Property Management Limited $2,806.83 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 (6310440-026) to Homely Property Management Limited immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,281.43 Lock/key replacement$1,133.90 Carpet Cleaning$360.00 Cleaning: rubbish removal$264.50 Repairs: wall damage$2,500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$5,566.83 Bond$2,760.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,806.83

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant had notified the landlord by text on the morning of the hearing that she was seeking an adjournment because she had filed a cross-application that morning.
If the tenant had made an application for adjournment, it would not have been granted. Given the nature of the landlord’s claims, it is not necessary that the tenant’s claims be heard together.
Once the tenant’s application is received, a further hearing will be necessary to hear her claims.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 21 November 2024. A prior order 4959573 dated 27 August 2024 had awarded the landlord rent arrears to 30 August 2024.
The landlord provided rent records for the period after that date to termination. It recorded that the rent for the period 12 October to 18 October was $1,380.00. This is in correct and the correct figure was $690.00. The amount claimed has therefore been reduced by $690.00.

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 landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The photographic evidence showed that the carpets had been stained and the landlord advised that the tenant had a dog at the property throughout the tenancy.
The tenant did not return the keys.
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. 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 that there were numerous cuts or dents in a wall in the hallway, two walls in the main bedroom and one wall in the living space. They had been poorly patched with plaster and required repair to a professional standard. By its nature and extent, the damage was intentional damage.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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. The landlord advised that the walls had been freshly painted in 2020. A small reduction in the amount claimed has been made to reflect that the wall painting was two years old and not brand new at the start of the tenancy.
Because Homely Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5129415 — Property damage at 66 Manawatu Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5129415 — Property damage at 66 Manawatu Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

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