How much money was awarded in case 5157711?

Light Fittings: $69.53 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $618.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5157711?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5157711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11714423-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5157711?

Light Fittings: $69.53 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $618.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5157711?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5157711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11714423-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6A Amber Grove, Birchville, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5157711 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5157711?

The tribunal order states: Selina Vanaikece Ranimila and Kelemedi Rokocanatabua Ranamila must pay

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5157711 — net $238.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$618.50	Rubbish removal
Light fittings	$69.53	Light fittings
Window repairs	$250.00	Window repairs
Repairs	$1,500.00	Repairs
Net award	$238.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$238.03

Selina Vanaikece Ranimila and Kelemedi Rokocanatabua Ranamila must pay Rosetta Holdings Limited As Agent For Lone Tree Limited $238.03 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (6377412-009) to Rosetta Holdings Limited As Agent For Lone Tree Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant did not attend the hearing. Attempts were made to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone, but the calls went to voicemail.

I am satisfied that the tenants have notice of this hearing pursuant to section 91A(2)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

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

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: missing light fittings, damaged walls, five broken windows, broken bathroom vanity. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord claimed for repairing and painting all walls and doors in the three bedrooms, hallway and lounge. It is not clear from the photographs produced that all walls and doors needed painting due to damage caused by the tenant. I note that there are marks on the walls from pen and things being stuck to the wall and ceiling but there is also some fair wear and tear.

There is an invoice amounting to $5,543.00 which is for the time to repair and paint the premises, remove the rubbish, and garden maintenance. The amount of time claimed exceeds that required to carry out the repairs attributable to the tenant. I have therefore reduced the invoice to $1,500.00 which also includes the consumables claimed for the painting and repairs. I have awarded separately for the cost of a skip bin and tip fees as well as repairs to the five windows.

Because Rosetta Holdings Limited As Agent For Lone Tree Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the landlord’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5157711 — net $238.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$618.50	Rubbish removal
Light fittings	$69.53	Light fittings
Window repairs	$250.00	Window repairs
Repairs	$1,500.00	Repairs
Net award	$238.03
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$238.03

Order

Selina Vanaikece Ranimila and Kelemedi Rokocanatabua Ranamila must pay Rosetta Holdings Limited As Agent For Lone Tree Limited $238.03 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 (6377412-009) to Rosetta Holdings Limited As Agent For Lone Tree Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone. The tenant did not attend the hearing. Attempts were made to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone, but the calls went to voicemail.
I am satisfied that the tenants have notice of this hearing pursuant to section 91A(2)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: missing light fittings, damaged walls, five broken windows, broken bathroom vanity. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claimed for repairing and painting all walls and doors in the three bedrooms, hallway and lounge. It is not clear from the photographs produced that all walls and doors needed painting due to damage caused by the tenant. I note that there are marks on the walls from pen and things being stuck to the wall and ceiling but there is also some fair wear and tear.
There is an invoice amounting to $5,543.00 which is for the time to repair and paint the premises, remove the rubbish, and garden maintenance. The amount of time claimed exceeds that required to carry out the repairs attributable to the tenant. I have therefore reduced the invoice to $1,500.00 which also includes the consumables claimed for the painting and repairs. I have awarded separately for the cost of a skip bin and tip fees as well as repairs to the five windows.
Because Rosetta Holdings Limited As Agent For Lone Tree Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5157711 — Property damage at 6A Amber Grove, Birchville, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5157711 — Property damage at 6A Amber Grove, Birchville, Upper Hutt 5018

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions