What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5222452?

The tribunal order states: Te Kepa James Lee Grant must pay Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited - As Agent For 146

How much money was awarded in case 5222452?

Cleaning: $3,947.88 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5222452?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5222452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11751738-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5222452?

The tribunal order states: Te Kepa James Lee Grant must pay Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited - As Agent For 146

How much money was awarded in case 5222452?

Cleaning: $3,947.88 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5222452?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5222452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11751738-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 9, 146 Vivian Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5222452 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5222452 — net $2,694.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning, repairs and furniture replacement costs of	$3,947.88	Cleaning, repairs and furniture replacement costs of
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,694.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,694.88

The attended the hearing represented by Ms Wallace. There was no appearance for the tenant.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the boarding house tenancy.

The tenancy ended on 24 June 2024, following a notice by the landlord terminating the tenancy immediately due to the tenant causing substantial damage at the premises including damage to the next-door room. See section 66U(1)(a)(i) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L 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: The tenant intentionally and substantially damaged his room as shown in the photos produced in evidence. The damage included multiple holes in the walls some of which penetrated through to the next-door room; a crack in the skylight; broken desk and set of drawers. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was intentional. Based on the photos, the room was also not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

The landlord provided a quote from the contractor who completed all the work required to repair and reinstate the room. The landlord confirmed that the work has been completed and the invoice paid is the same as the quote. The contractor itemised some, but not all, of the costs which covered cleaning, rubbish removal, repairing holes in wall linings, fixing entry door hardware; plastering and painting the room and replacing a desk and set of drawers.

I am satisfied, based on the evidence, that the overall costs appear to be reasonable and justified for the work required.

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.

In relation to the furnishings that were replaced, current depreciation guidelines estimate that furniture in a rental property should last approximately 10 years. Ms Wallace did not know the age of the desk and chair but noted they had not been replaced in the last 3 years that she has managed the property. They appear from the photos to be of average quality. The replacement cost was not itemised. However, the landlord supplied photos of the new furnishings and the desk appears to be one available online at The Warehouse for $199. The set of drawers is similar to drawers available online from The Warehouse costing $100. Therefore, I find the replacement furniture likely cost $300. Based on the evidence of age and quality, I consider the furniture was likely at least 5 years old and the remedial costs should be depreciated by 50% to $150. Therefore the sum of $150 is deducted from the sum claimed.

In relation to painted walls, current depreciation guidelines estimate they should last 10-14 years with bedroom walls expected to last longer than living areas. I consider 12 years is an appropriate estimate here. Ms Wallace could not say when the walls were last painted but it was before she took over management of the property 3 years ago. The inspection report prepared 2 months after the tenancy began dated 4 March 2024 records wear and tear on the walls and “Odd marks and a few little holes throughout.” On that basis I consider the painted walls were likely at least 5 years old and the cost of plastering and painting the walls should be reduced for depreciation by 40%. The cost itemised on the contractor’s quote was $2,150 inclusive of GST. Therefore the sum of $860 is deducted from the sum claimed.

I invited Ms Wallace to check with the owner as to the age of the above items but she preferred to leave the issue to the Tribunal’s discretion. Overall, I consider the amount awarded is fair and reasonable for the costs of remediating the damage caused.

As the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee on the application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5222452 — net $2,694.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning, repairs and furniture replacement costs of	$3,947.88	Cleaning, repairs and furniture replacement costs of
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,694.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,694.88

Order

Te Kepa James Lee Grant must pay Oxygen.Co.Nz Limited - As Agent For 146 Vivian Street $2,694.88 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The attended the hearing represented by Ms Wallace. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the boarding house tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 24 June 2024, following a notice by the landlord terminating the tenancy immediately due to the tenant causing substantial damage at the premises including damage to the next-door room. See section 66U(1)(a)(i) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L 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: The tenant intentionally and substantially damaged his room as shown in the photos produced in evidence. The damage included multiple holes in the walls some of which penetrated through to the next-door room; a crack in the skylight; broken desk and set of drawers. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage which I find was intentional. Based on the photos, the room was also not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord provided a quote from the contractor who completed all the work required to repair and reinstate the room. The landlord confirmed that the work has been completed and the invoice paid is the same as the quote. The contractor itemised some, but not all, of the costs which covered cleaning, rubbish removal, repairing holes in wall linings, fixing entry door hardware; plastering and painting the room and replacing a desk and set of drawers.
I am satisfied, based on the evidence, that the overall costs appear to be reasonable and justified for the work required.
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.
In relation to the furnishings that were replaced, current depreciation guidelines estimate that furniture in a rental property should last approximately 10 years. Ms Wallace did not know the age of the desk and chair but noted they had not been replaced in the last 3 years that she has managed the property. They appear from the photos to be of average quality. The replacement cost was not itemised. However, the landlord supplied photos of the new furnishings and the desk appears to be one available online at The Warehouse for $199. The set of drawers is similar to drawers available online from The Warehouse costing $100. Therefore, I find the replacement furniture likely cost $300. Based on the evidence of age and quality, I consider the furniture was likely at least 5 years old and the remedial costs should be depreciated by 50% to $150. Therefore the sum of $150 is deducted from the sum claimed.
In relation to painted walls, current depreciation guidelines estimate they should last 10-14 years with bedroom walls expected to last longer than living areas. I consider 12 years is an appropriate estimate here. Ms Wallace could not say when the walls were last painted but it was before she took over management of the property 3 years ago. The inspection report prepared 2 months after the tenancy began dated 4 March 2024 records wear and tear on the walls and “Odd marks and a few little holes throughout.” On that basis I consider the painted walls were likely at least 5 years old and the cost of plastering and painting the walls should be reduced for depreciation by 40%. The cost itemised on the contractor’s quote was $2,150 inclusive of GST. Therefore the sum of $860 is deducted from the sum claimed.
I invited Ms Wallace to check with the owner as to the age of the above items but she preferred to leave the issue to the Tribunal’s discretion. Overall, I consider the amount awarded is fair and reasonable for the costs of remediating the damage caused.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with their claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee on the application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5222452 — Cleanliness at Room 9, 146 Vivian Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5222452 — Cleanliness at Room 9, 146 Vivian Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions