What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5179291?

The tribunal order states: Michael Jay William Rerewaoterangi Tamakaha and Rayne Alana Thompson

How much money was awarded in case 5179291?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $146.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain Netting: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $522.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5179291?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5179291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11951126-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5179291?

The tribunal order states: Michael Jay William Rerewaoterangi Tamakaha and Rayne Alana Thompson

How much money was awarded in case 5179291?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $146.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $620.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain Netting: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $522.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5179291?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5179291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11951126-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

68 King Street, Marton, Marton 4710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5179291 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5179291 — net $1,385.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning, rubbish removal and lawnmowing	$522.00	Cleaning, rubbish removal and lawnmowing
Replace furnishings: curtain netting	$70.00	Replace furnishings: curtain netting
Lock/key replacement	$146.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs to walls and power sockets	$620.00	Repairs to walls and power sockets
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,385.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,385.00

Order

Michael Jay William Rerewaoterangi Tamakaha and Rayne Alana Thompson must pay Property Brokers Manawatu Limited Acting Agent For Petran Properties Ltd - Peter & Anne Russell $1,385.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. 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. 1
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities” 2 . Therefore, the requirement to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to both the inside and outside of the premises.
The landlord seeks compensation for the following items: a. Cleaning, lawnmowing and rubbish removal:$522.00 b. Replace curtain netting:$70.00 c. Replace keys/locks:$146.00
The landlord submitted invoices the above amounts. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.
I deal with each issue in turn below. Cleaning, lawnmowing and rubbish removal
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show the tenant left behind some rubbish and personal belongings at the end of the tenancy. They also show the lawns are overgrown.
On the basis of the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $522.00 to clean the premises, mow the lawns and remove all rubbish is granted. Replace curtain netting
The landlord gave evidence that curtains and netting were provided by the landlord to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims that netting was missing from the windows in bedroom 3 at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted photographs of bedroom 3 taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the beginning show netting is present on the windows. The photographs taken at the end show the netting is missing.
On the balance of probabilities, I find that netting was provided by the landlord as a chattel for the tenant’s benefit at the beginning of the tenancy and was not returned at the end.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $70.00 to replace the netting in bedroom 3 is granted. Key/lock replacement
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord has had the keys and locks replaced at a cost of $146.00. The landlord’s claim for compensation for $146.00 is granted.

DAMAGE

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. 3
The landlord gave evidence that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Holes in the wall in the hallway b. Broken power points in the kitchen and lounge c. Scratched bathroom doorframe
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy do not show any holes in the walls. In comparison, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show a hole in the wall in the hallway.
The landlord did not submit any photographs of the bathroom door at the end of the tenancy, but gave evidence that the tenant kept at least one dog at the premises. The landlord gave evidence that the bathroom doorframe was heavily scratched and suspects that the tenant’s dog was locked in there at one point and scratched the doorframe.
The landlord also gave evidence that a power socket in the kitchen and lounge were broken.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence in respect of the damage sustained to the bathroom doorframe and power points in the kitchen and lounge.
On the basis of the photographs submitted and evidence given at the hearing, I find the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Hole in the hallway wall b. Broken power points in the kitchen and lounge c. Scratched bathroom doorframe
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $522.00 to repair the above damage is granted in full. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 & 49B.
The invoice submitted by the landlord included an additional cost of $106 for what is described as “damage to store, replacement items”. The landlord was unable to confirm what this description related to at the hearing. Therefore, I decline to order the tenant to compensate the landlord for this cost.
The amounts ordered above 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. 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.

FILING FEE

Because Property Brokers Manawatu Limited Acting Agent For Petran Properties Ltd - Peter & Anne Russell has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5179291 — net $1,385.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning, rubbish removal and lawnmowing	$522.00	Cleaning, rubbish removal and lawnmowing
Replace furnishings: curtain netting	$70.00	Replace furnishings: curtain netting
Lock/key replacement	$146.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs to walls and power sockets	$620.00	Repairs to walls and power sockets
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,385.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,385.00

Order

Michael Jay William Rerewaoterangi Tamakaha and Rayne Alana Thompson must pay Property Brokers Manawatu Limited Acting Agent For Petran Properties Ltd - Peter & Anne Russell $1,385.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. 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. 1
The term “premises” includes “any land and appurtenances, other than facilities” 2 . Therefore, the requirement to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy relates to both the inside and outside of the premises.
The landlord seeks compensation for the following items: a. Cleaning, lawnmowing and rubbish removal:$522.00 b. Replace curtain netting:$70.00 c. Replace keys/locks:$146.00
The landlord submitted invoices the above amounts. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(ii) – (v). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2.
I deal with each issue in turn below. Cleaning, lawnmowing and rubbish removal
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show the tenant left behind some rubbish and personal belongings at the end of the tenancy. They also show the lawns are overgrown.
On the basis of the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy, I find the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $522.00 to clean the premises, mow the lawns and remove all rubbish is granted. Replace curtain netting
The landlord gave evidence that curtains and netting were provided by the landlord to the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord claims that netting was missing from the windows in bedroom 3 at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord submitted photographs of bedroom 3 taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the beginning show netting is present on the windows. The photographs taken at the end show the netting is missing.
On the balance of probabilities, I find that netting was provided by the landlord as a chattel for the tenant’s benefit at the beginning of the tenancy and was not returned at the end.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $70.00 to replace the netting in bedroom 3 is granted. Key/lock replacement
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point.
The landlord has had the keys and locks replaced at a cost of $146.00. The landlord’s claim for compensation for $146.00 is granted.

DAMAGE

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. 3
The landlord gave evidence that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Holes in the wall in the hallway b. Broken power points in the kitchen and lounge c. Scratched bathroom doorframe
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy do not show any holes in the walls. In comparison, the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy show a hole in the wall in the hallway.
The landlord did not submit any photographs of the bathroom door at the end of the tenancy, but gave evidence that the tenant kept at least one dog at the premises. The landlord gave evidence that the bathroom doorframe was heavily scratched and suspects that the tenant’s dog was locked in there at one point and scratched the doorframe.
The landlord also gave evidence that a power socket in the kitchen and lounge were broken.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the landlord’s evidence in respect of the damage sustained to the bathroom doorframe and power points in the kitchen and lounge.
On the basis of the photographs submitted and evidence given at the hearing, I find the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Hole in the hallway wall b. Broken power points in the kitchen and lounge c. Scratched bathroom doorframe
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord’s claim for compensation of $522.00 to repair the above damage is granted in full. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 & 49B.
The invoice submitted by the landlord included an additional cost of $106 for what is described as “damage to store, replacement items”. The landlord was unable to confirm what this description related to at the hearing. Therefore, I decline to order the tenant to compensate the landlord for this cost.
The amounts ordered above 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. 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.

FILING FEE

Because Property Brokers Manawatu Limited Acting Agent For Petran Properties Ltd - Peter & Anne Russell has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5179291 — Property damage at 68 King Street, Marton, Marton 4710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5179291 — Property damage at 68 King Street, Marton, Marton 4710

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TENANCY?

DAMAGE

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions