What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5372065?

The tribunal order states: Matekino Marshall must pay Csi Property Management Limited As The Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5372065?

Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Wooden Door: $575.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372065?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372065?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13215724-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5372065?

The tribunal order states: Matekino Marshall must pay Csi Property Management Limited As The Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5372065?

Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Wooden Door: $575.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5372065?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5372065?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13215724-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Sherwood Drive, Glenbrook, RD 4, Glenbrook 2679 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5372065 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5372065 — net $775.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: and removal washing machine	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work: and removal washing machine
Repairs: Wooden door	$575.00	Repairs: Wooden door
Net award	$775.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$775.00

Order

Matekino Marshall must pay Csi Property Management Limited As The Agent For Johns Farmlet Services John And Lee Thornton $775.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not appear.
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. 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 Landlord submitted that the Tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and did not remove all rubbish. It was contended that the property required cleaning, rubbish removal, and lawn mowing at the conclusion of the tenancy. In support of this claim, the Landlord provided an invoice for the alleged costs and photographs showing overgrown lawns. However, the only photograph produced in relation to rubbish showed a washing machine located in what appeared to be the garage. No additional photographs of rubbish were provided. Further, the Landlord did not submit a vacate inspection report or photographs evidencing the overall condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy to substantiate the claim that cleaning was required. In the absence of sufficient evidence, that portion of the claim is not established.
The claim is allowed in part for lawn mowing and partial rubbish removal in the amount of $200.00, but the claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The Tenant did not return the keys at the conclusion of the tenancy. The Landlord provided an invoice evidencing the cost of engaging a locksmith to cut new keys. However, no evidence was produced to establish which, or how many, keys were issued to the Tenant at the commencement of the tenancy
For these reasons, the claims are dismissed.

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 Landlord alleged that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a broken wooden bedroom door, a broken door handle, damage to the bathroom ensuite wall, a towel rail requiring reattachment, and replacement of an oven knob.
The Landlord provided ingoing and outgoing photographs of the wooden bedroom door, which demonstrated that the damage occurred during the tenancy. Photographs were also provided of a damaged towel rail and a missing oven knob at the end of the tenancy. However, no ingoing photographs were produced in relation to the towel rail or the oven knob. Further, there were no ingoing photographs of the bathroom ensuite wall or the door handle to establish their condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
In the absence of comparative evidence demonstrating that the towel rail, oven knob, bathroom wall, and door handle were not damaged at the start of the tenancy, those claims are not proved. The claim in respect of the wooden bedroom door is established. The claims relating to the towel rail, oven knob, bathroom wall repair, and door handle are dismissed.
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.
As the Landlord has not been substantially successful, the Landlord shall bear the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5372065 — net $775.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: and removal washing machine	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work: and removal washing machine
Repairs: Wooden door	$575.00	Repairs: Wooden door
Net award	$775.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$775.00

Order

Matekino Marshall must pay Csi Property Management Limited As The Agent For Johns Farmlet Services John And Lee Thornton $775.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not appear.
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. 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 Landlord submitted that the Tenant failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition and did not remove all rubbish. It was contended that the property required cleaning, rubbish removal, and lawn mowing at the conclusion of the tenancy. In support of this claim, the Landlord provided an invoice for the alleged costs and photographs showing overgrown lawns. However, the only photograph produced in relation to rubbish showed a washing machine located in what appeared to be the garage. No additional photographs of rubbish were provided. Further, the Landlord did not submit a vacate inspection report or photographs evidencing the overall condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy to substantiate the claim that cleaning was required. In the absence of sufficient evidence, that portion of the claim is not established.
The claim is allowed in part for lawn mowing and partial rubbish removal in the amount of $200.00, but the claim for cleaning is dismissed.
The Tenant did not return the keys at the conclusion of the tenancy. The Landlord provided an invoice evidencing the cost of engaging a locksmith to cut new keys. However, no evidence was produced to establish which, or how many, keys were issued to the Tenant at the commencement of the tenancy
For these reasons, the claims are dismissed.

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 Landlord alleged that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a broken wooden bedroom door, a broken door handle, damage to the bathroom ensuite wall, a towel rail requiring reattachment, and replacement of an oven knob.
The Landlord provided ingoing and outgoing photographs of the wooden bedroom door, which demonstrated that the damage occurred during the tenancy. Photographs were also provided of a damaged towel rail and a missing oven knob at the end of the tenancy. However, no ingoing photographs were produced in relation to the towel rail or the oven knob. Further, there were no ingoing photographs of the bathroom ensuite wall or the door handle to establish their condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
In the absence of comparative evidence demonstrating that the towel rail, oven knob, bathroom wall, and door handle were not damaged at the start of the tenancy, those claims are not proved. The claim in respect of the wooden bedroom door is established. The claims relating to the towel rail, oven knob, bathroom wall repair, and door handle are dismissed.
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.
As the Landlord has not been substantially successful, the Landlord shall bear the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372065 — Property damage at 4 Sherwood Drive, Glenbrook, RD 4, Glenbrook 2679

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5372065 — Property damage at 4 Sherwood Drive, Glenbrook, RD 4, Glenbrook 2679

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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