What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5213956?

The tribunal order states: Greg Olliver must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Howick As Agent For Guan

How much money was awarded in case 5213956?

Bailiff'S Fee: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $565.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Waste Water Line: $228.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5213956?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5213956?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12248876-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5213956?

The tribunal order states: Greg Olliver must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Howick As Agent For Guan

How much money was awarded in case 5213956?

Bailiff'S Fee: $258.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $565.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Waste Water Line: $228.85 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5213956?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5213956?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12248876-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

572 Whitford Road, Whitford, RD 1, Whitford 2571 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5213956 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5213956 — net $3,478.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Bailiff's fee	$258.00	Bailiff's fee
Repairs: Water filter and UV light- insurance excess	$750.00	Repairs: Water filter and UV light- insurance excess
Repairs: Gutter - Insurance excess	$750.00	Repairs: Gutter - Insurance excess
Cleaning	$900.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement: and garage door remotes	$565.00	Lock/key replacement: and garage door remotes
Repairs: Waste water line	$228.85	Repairs: Waste water line
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,478.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,478.85

The landlord attended the hearing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. A telephone call was made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The call went to the tenant’s message service. The Tribunal had previously ordered that the tenant was to provide the Tribunal with a direct telephone number. The tenant has failed to do so. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.

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, return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning and an extensive number of photographs showing the premises both at the commencement of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy. The photos make it clear that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy by the tenant. The obligation to leave premises reasonably clean and tidy is the only obligation on the tenant under the RTA. The landlord’s invoice refers to the cleaner having conducted a “deep clean”. That is not the standard of cleanliness required of a tenant. Having reviewed the photos and considered both the invoice and the size of the premises, I consider that a reasonable fee to clean the premises to the required standard would be $900.00.

The tenant did not return the garage remotes and the sliding door to the living room had been damaged. The landlord provided an invoice from the locksmith of $565.00.

The landlord was required to obtain the services of a bailiff to enforce a previous possession order by the Tribunal. The landlord provided a copy of in invoice from the bailiff for $258.00.

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. The landlord is insured for tenant damage. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $750.00 on each and every claim.

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 water filter and UV light has been damaged during the course of the tenancy. The narration to the invoice noted that the filter and UV light had been damaged. The landlord said that it may have been damaged as a result of the tenant using a digger. The invoice is for $2,645.00. The damage is covered by the landlord’s insurance. The excess on this claim is $750.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The gutter was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord said that it had been damaged by the tenant using a digger. The tenant had said that he would repair the damage. Those repairs were not carried out by the tenant. The landlord provided an invoice for repairs of $2,070.00. The damage is covered by the landlord’s insurance. The excess on this claim is $750.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. An exterior wastewater line has been damaged during the tenancy by a lawn mower. The landlord provided photos of the damage and an invoice for repairs of $228.85. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord’s claim in relation to the removal of art works was withdrawn.

As Barfoot & Thompson Limited Howick As Agent For Guan Lu International Investment Ltd has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5213956 — net $3,478.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Bailiff's fee	$258.00	Bailiff's fee
Repairs: Water filter and UV light- insurance excess	$750.00	Repairs: Water filter and UV light- insurance excess
Repairs: Gutter - Insurance excess	$750.00	Repairs: Gutter - Insurance excess
Cleaning	$900.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement: and garage door remotes	$565.00	Lock/key replacement: and garage door remotes
Repairs: Waste water line	$228.85	Repairs: Waste water line
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,478.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,478.85

Order

Greg Olliver must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Howick As Agent For Guan Lu International Investment Ltd $3,478.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. A telephone call was made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The call went to the tenant’s message service. The Tribunal had previously ordered that the tenant was to provide the Tribunal with a direct telephone number. The tenant has failed to do so. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to the tenant.
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, return all keys and security devices. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided an invoice for cleaning and an extensive number of photographs showing the premises both at the commencement of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy. The photos make it clear that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy by the tenant. The obligation to leave premises reasonably clean and tidy is the only obligation on the tenant under the RTA. The landlord’s invoice refers to the cleaner having conducted a “deep clean”. That is not the standard of cleanliness required of a tenant. Having reviewed the photos and considered both the invoice and the size of the premises, I consider that a reasonable fee to clean the premises to the required standard would be $900.00.
The tenant did not return the garage remotes and the sliding door to the living room had been damaged. The landlord provided an invoice from the locksmith of $565.00.
The landlord was required to obtain the services of a bailiff to enforce a previous possession order by the Tribunal. The landlord provided a copy of in invoice from the bailiff for $258.00.
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. The landlord is insured for tenant damage. The landlord’s policy of insurance carries an excess of $750.00 on each and every claim.
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 water filter and UV light has been damaged during the course of the tenancy. The narration to the invoice noted that the filter and UV light had been damaged. The landlord said that it may have been damaged as a result of the tenant using a digger. The invoice is for $2,645.00. The damage is covered by the landlord’s insurance. The excess on this claim is $750.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The gutter was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord said that it had been damaged by the tenant using a digger. The tenant had said that he would repair the damage. Those repairs were not carried out by the tenant. The landlord provided an invoice for repairs of $2,070.00. The damage is covered by the landlord’s insurance. The excess on this claim is $750.00. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. An exterior wastewater line has been damaged during the tenancy by a lawn mower. The landlord provided photos of the damage and an invoice for repairs of $228.85. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord’s claim in relation to the removal of art works was withdrawn.
As Barfoot & Thompson Limited Howick As Agent For Guan Lu International Investment Ltd has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5213956 — Property damage at 572 Whitford Road, Whitford, RD 1, Whitford 2571

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5213956 — Property damage at 572 Whitford Road, Whitford, RD 1, Whitford 2571

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