What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5380782?

The tribunal order states: Huia Edwards must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,891.22

How much money was awarded in case 5380782?

Cleaning: $858.61 awarded to landlord; 2 Doors Replaced: $1,129.69 awarded to landlord; 7 Holes In Walls: $281.12 awarded to landlord; Painting Walls: $263.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,358.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380782?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380782?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12944421-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5380782?

The tribunal order states: Huia Edwards must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,891.22

How much money was awarded in case 5380782?

Cleaning: $858.61 awarded to landlord; 2 Doors Replaced: $1,129.69 awarded to landlord; 7 Holes In Walls: $281.12 awarded to landlord; Painting Walls: $263.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,358.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380782?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380782?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12944421-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 5, 57 Marne Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5380782 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat Flat 5, 57 Marne Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5380782 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5380782 — net $3,891.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,358.80	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$858.61	Cleaning
Repairs: 7 holes in walls	$281.12	Repairs: 7 holes in walls
Repairs: painting walls	$263.00	Repairs: painting walls
Repairs: 2 doors replaced	$1,129.69	Repairs: 2 doors replaced
Net award	$3,891.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,891.22

Claims and awards for application 5380782 — net $3,891.22 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,358.80
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $858.61
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: 7 holes in walls

Amount: $281.12
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: 7 holes in walls

Repairs: painting walls

Amount: $263.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: painting walls

Repairs: 2 doors replaced

Amount: $1,129.69
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: 2 doors replaced

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Huia Edwards must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,891.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table the below. DescriptionLandlord Rubbish removal$1,358.80 Cleaning$858.61 Repairs: 7 holes in walls$281.12 Repairs: painting walls$263.00 Repairs: 2 doors replaced$1,129.69 Total award$3,891.22 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,891.22

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenant was telephoned twice but did not respond.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. It appeared from the photographs that the tenant had taken what she wanted, left anything else behind and made no attempt to clean.
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.
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 provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. There were seven holes punched or kicked in walls. b. There was extensive drawing over several walls. c. The door to bedroom 3 and to the side of the garage were missing.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
From its nature and extent, the damage was intentional damage.
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. I accept the landlord’s calculation for depreciation of the extensive painting work required.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5380782 — net $3,891.22 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$1,358.80	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$858.61	Cleaning
Repairs: 7 holes in walls	$281.12	Repairs: 7 holes in walls
Repairs: painting walls	$263.00	Repairs: painting walls
Repairs: 2 doors replaced	$1,129.69	Repairs: 2 doors replaced
Net award	$3,891.22
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,891.22

Claims and awards for application 5380782 — net $3,891.22 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rubbish removal

Amount: $1,358.80
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $858.61
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: 7 holes in walls

Amount: $281.12
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: 7 holes in walls

Repairs: painting walls

Amount: $263.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: painting walls

Repairs: 2 doors replaced

Amount: $1,129.69
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: 2 doors replaced

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

Huia Edwards must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,891.22 immediately, calculated as shown in table the below. DescriptionLandlord Rubbish removal$1,358.80 Cleaning$858.61 Repairs: 7 holes in walls$281.12 Repairs: painting walls$263.00 Repairs: 2 doors replaced$1,129.69 Total award$3,891.22 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,891.22

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenant was telephoned twice but did not respond.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. It appeared from the photographs that the tenant had taken what she wanted, left anything else behind and made no attempt to clean.
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.
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 provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. There were seven holes punched or kicked in walls. b. There was extensive drawing over several walls. c. The door to bedroom 3 and to the side of the garage were missing.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
From its nature and extent, the damage was intentional damage.
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. I accept the landlord’s calculation for depreciation of the extensive painting work required.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380782 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 57 Marne Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380782 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 57 Marne Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

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

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

Frequently asked questions