What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5206092?

The tribunal order states: Tautuimoana Victory Leavai must pay Opes Property Management North

How much money was awarded in case 5206092?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $205.56 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5206092?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5206092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11831691-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5206092?

The tribunal order states: Tautuimoana Victory Leavai must pay Opes Property Management North

How much money was awarded in case 5206092?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $205.56 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,380.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5206092?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5206092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11831691-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 10, 30 Bowater Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5206092 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5206092 — net $2,612.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,380.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$205.56	Lock/key replacement
Insurance excess to repair kitchen benchtop	$250.00	Insurance excess to repair kitchen benchtop
Insurance excess to replace carpet	$500.00	Insurance excess to replace carpet
Insurance excess to replace cook top	$250.00	Insurance excess to replace cook top
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,612.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,612.56

The landlord attended the video hearing represented by Ms Barlow. The tenant did not join the video hearing. The Tribunal also attempted to call the tenant on the telephone number provided for her in the application, but the calls disconnected. I am satisfied that the tenant received notice of the hearing and did not attend.

The landlord has applied for compensation 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 (RTA).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish as shown in photos produced in evidence at the hearing. The cleaning charges included attempts to clean carpet stains and a kitchen benchtop stain. The stains could not be removed, and the landlord seeks further costs incurred to remedy those items which I deal with below.

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. The owner held cover with an excess of $250 per incident.

If any damaged items require replacement, I must consider 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The kitchen benchtop was stained which could not be removed by ordinary cleaning. However, it was repaired by a professional stone cleaning and polishing process for $718.75. The landlord was covered by insurance for the claim less the excess of $250. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was careless. The tenant is liable for the insurance excess of $250. b. The carpet and underlay were stained in several areas of the living room and in the doorway of bedroom 2. The stains could not be removed by cleaning. The carpet was replaced at a cost of $2,798. The landlord was covered by insurance less an excess of $250 applied to each of the two areas. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was careless. The landlord advised that the carpet was brand new at the start of the tenancy. Applying depreciation would not reduce the claim below the excess. Therefore the tenant is liable for the two insurance excesses totalling $500. c. The cook top was cracked and replaced at a cost of $2,252.85. The landlord was covered by insurance less an excess of $250. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was careless. The landlord advised that the cook top was brand new at the start of the tenancy. Applying depreciation would not reduce the claim below the excess. Therefore, the tenant is liable for the excess of $250.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because the landlord has succeeded with the claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5206092 — net $2,612.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$1,380.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$205.56	Lock/key replacement
Insurance excess to repair kitchen benchtop	$250.00	Insurance excess to repair kitchen benchtop
Insurance excess to replace carpet	$500.00	Insurance excess to replace carpet
Insurance excess to replace cook top	$250.00	Insurance excess to replace cook top
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,612.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,612.56

Order

Tautuimoana Victory Leavai must pay Opes Property Management North Limited As Agent for Olivia & Llewelyn Lewis-Long $2,612.56 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing represented by Ms Barlow. The tenant did not join the video hearing. The Tribunal also attempted to call the tenant on the telephone number provided for her in the application, but the calls disconnected. I am satisfied that the tenant received notice of the hearing and did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation 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 (RTA).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish as shown in photos produced in evidence at the hearing. The cleaning charges included attempts to clean carpet stains and a kitchen benchtop stain. The stains could not be removed, and the landlord seeks further costs incurred to remedy those items which I deal with below.
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. The owner held cover with an excess of $250 per incident.
If any damaged items require replacement, I must consider 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The kitchen benchtop was stained which could not be removed by ordinary cleaning. However, it was repaired by a professional stone cleaning and polishing process for $718.75. The landlord was covered by insurance for the claim less the excess of $250. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was careless. The tenant is liable for the insurance excess of $250. b. The carpet and underlay were stained in several areas of the living room and in the doorway of bedroom 2. The stains could not be removed by cleaning. The carpet was replaced at a cost of $2,798. The landlord was covered by insurance less an excess of $250 applied to each of the two areas. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was careless. The landlord advised that the carpet was brand new at the start of the tenancy. Applying depreciation would not reduce the claim below the excess. Therefore the tenant is liable for the two insurance excesses totalling $500. c. The cook top was cracked and replaced at a cost of $2,252.85. The landlord was covered by insurance less an excess of $250. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was careless. The landlord advised that the cook top was brand new at the start of the tenancy. Applying depreciation would not reduce the claim below the excess. Therefore, the tenant is liable for the excess of $250.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because the landlord has succeeded with the claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5206092 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 10, 30 Bowater Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5206092 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 10, 30 Bowater Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

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