What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5147571?

The tribunal order states: Olga Trewby Gunn must pay Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5147571?

Cleaning: $338.12 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $4,552.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $523.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5147571?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5147571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11986032-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5147571?

The tribunal order states: Olga Trewby Gunn must pay Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 5147571?

Cleaning: $338.12 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $4,552.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $523.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5147571?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5147571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11986032-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

120 Miller Street, Georgetown, Invercargill 9812 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5147571 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5147571 — net $7,921.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Door repairs	$523.25	Door repairs
Wall repairs and painting	$3,500.00	Wall repairs and painting
Carpet Cleaning	$338.12	Carpet Cleaning
Meth testing/Cleaning	$4,552.75	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,921.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,921.12

Ms Gunn appeared personally at the hearing with her representative from Jubilee Budget Advisory Service.

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

Sadly for Ms Gunn she allowed others to live at the property with her. They were not named on the tenancy agreement and as a result she is left with the burden of the cost of damages that have occurred during this tenancy.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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.

Following the end of the tenancy meth testing was carried out, the levels are significant. Miss Gunn accepted that meth use occurred in the house during her tenancy. It was also noted that a kitchen extractor fan was installed during the tenancy and the testing from it showed a very high level. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The damages sought were over and above the successful insurance claim of $30,000 and did not include the additional damages sought.

The additional damages for the damaged door and wardrobe were not included in the insurance claim. The carpet was cleaned prior to the testing due to the pet odour that was very strong.

In relation to the painting this was in relation to the repairs to the holes in the walls in the kitchen, lounge and three bedrooms. Ms Gunn attempted to remedy herself however this was not to a suitable standard.

Whilst Ms Gunn raised the issue of one of the tests being in accurate, it did produce a high reading and required the other testing to be carried out. I note there is no claim for exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises.

I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the amounts are proven.

I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. This is in relation of the painting of the walls.

Because Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For Rev. Richard Gray has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5147571 — net $7,921.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Door repairs	$523.25	Door repairs
Wall repairs and painting	$3,500.00	Wall repairs and painting
Carpet Cleaning	$338.12	Carpet Cleaning
Meth testing/Cleaning	$4,552.75	Meth testing/Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,921.12
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,921.12

Order

Olga Trewby Gunn must pay Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For Rev. Richard Gray $7,921.12 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,020.00 (3749402-008) to Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For Rev. Richard Gray immediately.

Reasons

Ms Gunn appeared personally at the hearing with her representative from Jubilee Budget Advisory Service.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Sadly for Ms Gunn she allowed others to live at the property with her. They were not named on the tenancy agreement and as a result she is left with the burden of the cost of damages that have occurred during this tenancy.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
Following the end of the tenancy meth testing was carried out, the levels are significant. Miss Gunn accepted that meth use occurred in the house during her tenancy. It was also noted that a kitchen extractor fan was installed during the tenancy and the testing from it showed a very high level. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The damages sought were over and above the successful insurance claim of $30,000 and did not include the additional damages sought.
The additional damages for the damaged door and wardrobe were not included in the insurance claim. The carpet was cleaned prior to the testing due to the pet odour that was very strong.
In relation to the painting this was in relation to the repairs to the holes in the walls in the kitchen, lounge and three bedrooms. Ms Gunn attempted to remedy herself however this was not to a suitable standard.
Whilst Ms Gunn raised the issue of one of the tests being in accurate, it did produce a high reading and required the other testing to be carried out. I note there is no claim for exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the amounts are proven.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. This is in relation of the painting of the walls.
Because Pride Property Management Limited As Agent For Rev. Richard Gray has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5147571 — Cleanliness at 120 Miller Street, Georgetown, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5147571 — Cleanliness at 120 Miller Street, Georgetown, Invercargill 9812

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions