How much money was awarded in case 5163032?

Cleaning: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,142.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,828.50 awarded to landlord; Roller Blind In Back Bedroom: $120.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5163032?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5163032?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11690811-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5163032?

Cleaning: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,142.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,828.50 awarded to landlord; Roller Blind In Back Bedroom: $120.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5163032?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5163032?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11690811-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 2A Gibbons Street, Upper Hutt, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5163032 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5163032?

The tribunal order states: Chanelle Paris Harland must pay Wellington Property Management Limited

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5163032 — net $3,115.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,142.86	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$276.00	Cleaning
Repairs: plaster and paint walls, repair door frame	$1,828.50	Repairs: plaster and paint walls, repair door frame
Repairs: roller blind in back bedroom	$120.75	Repairs: roller blind in back bedroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,115.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,115.11

Chanelle Paris Harland must pay Wellington Property Management Limited $3,115.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Wellington Property Management Limited must take any personal documents belonging to the tenant, that have been left at the premises, to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.

The landlord shall dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant by disposing of the couch in question as the landlord sees fit.

The amount owing to the applicant out of the proceeds of any sale is $3,115.11.

Wellington Property Management Limited must pay the proceeds of any sale, less the amount owing, to the Bond Centre together with a copy of this order.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Ms Harland did not. I waited approximately 15 minutes to allow for unexpected delays, but when she failed to appear I chose to proceed with the hearing in her absence.

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?

Ms Harland was in the tenancy on a periodic lease from May 2023. She gave notice on 2 December 2024, with a leaving date of 30 December 2024, but remained in the tenancy until 14 January 2025. No rent was paid after 25 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $3142.86.

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. The walls and vinyl floors had marks from furniture and from dripping liquids. The heatpump and oven were grubby and the bathrooms was left unclean. The amount claimed in reasonable for the condition of the tenancy. 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 careless section 49B RTA applies. 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. The excess in this case is $500.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. 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: a. dents and holes in gibbed walls; b. glue marks above the kitchen bench where the tenant had installed then removed tiles; c. scrape damage to gib angles at a wall corner and the moulding above a door; d. screws installed in gib; e. damaged wall paint when vinyl stickers were removed; f. a broken roller blind g. damaged to the front door frame where the tenant had used a crowbar to access the flats after losing her keys; and h. marks where the tenant had attempted her own repairs to wall damage.

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

Apart from the damage referred to at [9]c. and f. the damage was intentional. The damage to the gib angles and the roller blind could have occurred due to careless ness, but the cost to repair each instance is less than the $500 excess. The amounts ordered are proved.

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. The tenancy was new at the start of the lease. Therefore, no depreciation applies.

The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods that the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy, specifically a couch which cannot fit through the front door. I understand that the couch was moved in by removing a window.

The landlord has contacted the tenant who was uninterested in having the couch returned.

It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant as it appears the couch may need to be destroyed in order for it to be removed.

The landlord may dispose of the couch as they see fit.

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5163032 — net $3,115.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,142.86	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$276.00	Cleaning
Repairs: plaster and paint walls, repair door frame	$1,828.50	Repairs: plaster and paint walls, repair door frame
Repairs: roller blind in back bedroom	$120.75	Repairs: roller blind in back bedroom
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,115.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,115.11

Order

Chanelle Paris Harland must pay Wellington Property Management Limited $3,115.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Wellington Property Management Limited must take any personal documents belonging to the tenant, that have been left at the premises, to the nearest Police station and obtain a receipt for them.
The landlord shall dispose of the other goods left at the premises by the tenant by disposing of the couch in question as the landlord sees fit.
The amount owing to the applicant out of the proceeds of any sale is $3,115.11.
Wellington Property Management Limited must pay the proceeds of any sale, less the amount owing, to the Bond Centre together with a copy of this order.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Ms Harland did not. I waited approximately 15 minutes to allow for unexpected delays, but when she failed to appear I chose to proceed with the hearing in her absence.
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?

Ms Harland was in the tenancy on a periodic lease from May 2023. She gave notice on 2 December 2024, with a leaving date of 30 December 2024, but remained in the tenancy until 14 January 2025. No rent was paid after 25 November 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $3142.86.

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. The walls and vinyl floors had marks from furniture and from dripping liquids. The heatpump and oven were grubby and the bathrooms was left unclean. The amount claimed in reasonable for the condition of the tenancy. 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 careless section 49B RTA applies. 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. The excess in this case is $500.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. 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: a. dents and holes in gibbed walls; b. glue marks above the kitchen bench where the tenant had installed then removed tiles; c. scrape damage to gib angles at a wall corner and the moulding above a door; d. screws installed in gib; e. damaged wall paint when vinyl stickers were removed; f. a broken roller blind g. damaged to the front door frame where the tenant had used a crowbar to access the flats after losing her keys; and h. marks where the tenant had attempted her own repairs to wall damage.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Apart from the damage referred to at [9]c. and f. the damage was intentional. The damage to the gib angles and the roller blind could have occurred due to careless ness, but the cost to repair each instance is less than the $500 excess. The amounts ordered are proved.
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. The tenancy was new at the start of the lease. Therefore, no depreciation applies.
The landlord has applied for the disposal of goods that the tenant left at the premises at the end of the tenancy, specifically a couch which cannot fit through the front door. I understand that the couch was moved in by removing a window.
The landlord has contacted the tenant who was uninterested in having the couch returned.
It is not practicable for the landlord to the return the goods to the tenant as it appears the couch may need to be destroyed in order for it to be removed.
The landlord may dispose of the couch as they see fit.
Because Wellington Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5163032 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 2A Gibbons Street, Upper Hutt, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5163032 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 2A Gibbons Street, Upper Hutt, Upper Hutt 5018

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