What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5210092?

The tribunal order states: Zara Selwyn must pay Point Property And Portfolio Management Limited - As

How much money was awarded in case 5210092?

Cleaning: $736.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $228.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5210092?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5210092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12046269-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5210092?

The tribunal order states: Zara Selwyn must pay Point Property And Portfolio Management Limited - As

How much money was awarded in case 5210092?

Cleaning: $736.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $228.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5210092?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5210092?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12046269-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

51 Jabuka Street, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5210092 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5210092 — net $3,541.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$736.00	Cleaning
Water pump cover replacement	$228.85	Water pump cover replacement
Insurance excess x 7 at per claim	$5,250.00	Insurance excess x 7 at per claim
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,541.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,541.85

Zara Selwyn must pay Point Property And Portfolio Management Limited - As Agent For Burhanuddin Haidermota $3,541.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 (6543966-001) to Point Property And Portfolio Management Limited - As Agent For Burhanuddin Haidermota immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.

I tried to call the tenant a number of times to encourage her to attend the hearing today. She ended the fixed term tenancy early and left the property in a short time frame due to domestic violence issues. It would have been helpful to the Tribunal to have heard from the tenant what, if any of the damage to the property was from incidents of domestic violence. The tenant did not answer the calls I made to he this morning.

I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

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

One smoke alarm was missing and had to be replaced.

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, 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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Broken toilet seat; b. Damage to the flooring in all rooms of the house, the landing and stairs; c. Damage to the walls in all rooms of the house, the landing and the stairway; d. Damage to the door of bedroom one; e. Curtains in bedroom one and living room; and f. Damage to water pump cover.

The damage to the water pump cover was significant. It was a hard plastic cover the landlord says was in a locked and gated area of the property. Such damage could not have occurred accidentally. The nature of the damage suggests it was intentional damage done using significant force.

The flooring was covered in stains that were not present at the start of the tenancy.

The curtains were covered in brown stains that would not wash off.

The damage to the walls consisted of holes and other marks that required plastering, sanding and painting.

The damage to the toilet seat could also not have occurred accidentally. The nature of the damage suggests it was intentional damage done using significant force.

The house was new at the start of the tenancy and the damage done during the tenancy is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord made eight insurance claims to cover the damage. Seven of these claims were accepted, and the landlord has proven it paid $750.00 excess on each of the seven claims. The eighth claim was not economical to proceed with, which is for the water pump cover, as the costs of replacement was less than the insurance excess.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee

Because Point Property And Portfolio Management Limited - As Agent For Burhanuddin Haidermota has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5210092 — net $3,541.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$736.00	Cleaning
Water pump cover replacement	$228.85	Water pump cover replacement
Insurance excess x 7 at per claim	$5,250.00	Insurance excess x 7 at per claim
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,541.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,541.85

Order

Zara Selwyn must pay Point Property And Portfolio Management Limited - As Agent For Burhanuddin Haidermota $3,541.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,700.00 (6543966-001) to Point Property And Portfolio Management Limited - As Agent For Burhanuddin Haidermota immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I tried to call the tenant a number of times to encourage her to attend the hearing today. She ended the fixed term tenancy early and left the property in a short time frame due to domestic violence issues. It would have been helpful to the Tribunal to have heard from the tenant what, if any of the damage to the property was from incidents of domestic violence. The tenant did not answer the calls I made to he this morning.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
One smoke alarm was missing and had to be replaced.
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, 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Broken toilet seat; b. Damage to the flooring in all rooms of the house, the landing and stairs; c. Damage to the walls in all rooms of the house, the landing and the stairway; d. Damage to the door of bedroom one; e. Curtains in bedroom one and living room; and f. Damage to water pump cover.
The damage to the water pump cover was significant. It was a hard plastic cover the landlord says was in a locked and gated area of the property. Such damage could not have occurred accidentally. The nature of the damage suggests it was intentional damage done using significant force.
The flooring was covered in stains that were not present at the start of the tenancy.
The curtains were covered in brown stains that would not wash off.
The damage to the walls consisted of holes and other marks that required plastering, sanding and painting.
The damage to the toilet seat could also not have occurred accidentally. The nature of the damage suggests it was intentional damage done using significant force.
The house was new at the start of the tenancy and the damage done during the tenancy is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord made eight insurance claims to cover the damage. Seven of these claims were accepted, and the landlord has proven it paid $750.00 excess on each of the seven claims. The eighth claim was not economical to proceed with, which is for the water pump cover, as the costs of replacement was less than the insurance excess.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because Point Property And Portfolio Management Limited - As Agent For Burhanuddin Haidermota has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5210092 — Property damage at 51 Jabuka Street, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5210092 — Property damage at 51 Jabuka Street, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

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