What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5393783?

The tribunal order states: Jeneil Marie Payne must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,713.49

How much money was awarded in case 5393783?

Amount Paid By Tenant For The Claims: $32.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $231.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpets: $2,381.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Doors: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Heat Pump Remote: $55.66 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Kitchen Drawer Front: $97.36 awarded to landlord; Tidying Lawns: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393783?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393783?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13218049-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5393783?

The tribunal order states: Jeneil Marie Payne must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,713.49

How much money was awarded in case 5393783?

Amount Paid By Tenant For The Claims: $32.00 awarded to tenant; Cleaning: $231.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpets: $2,381.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Doors: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Heat Pump Remote: $55.66 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Kitchen Drawer Front: $97.36 awarded to landlord; Tidying Lawns: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393783?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393783?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13218049-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50 Oakhampton Street, Hornby, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5393783 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

50 Oakhampton Street, Hornby, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5393783 — 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 5393783 — net $3,713.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Tidying lawns	$80.00		Tidying lawns
Cleaning the oven & rangehood	$231.47		Cleaning the oven & rangehood
Replace carpets	$2,381.00		Replace carpets
Repair walls	$500.00		Repair walls
Replace doors	$400.00		Replace doors
Replace missing heat pump remote	$55.66		Replace missing heat pump remote
Replace missing kitchen drawer front	$97.36		Replace missing kitchen drawer front
Amount paid by tenant for the claims		$32.00	Amount paid by tenant for the claims
Total award	$3,745.49	$32.00
Net award	$3,713.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,713.49

Claims and awards for application 5393783 — net $3,713.49 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Tidying lawns

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Tidying lawns

Cleaning the oven & rangehood

Amount: $231.47
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning the oven & rangehood

Replace carpets

Amount: $2,381.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace carpets

Repair walls

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair walls

Replace doors

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace doors

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage

Order

Jeneil Marie Payne must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,713.49 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Thompson-Wise represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for the costs to clean the premises, tidy the lawns, and repair damage following the end of the tenancy. The landlord also claimed the cost to remove rubbish, but Ms Thompson-Wise withdrew that claim at the hearing.
Ms Payne accepts the claim for damage to four doors at the premises and the damage to the walls.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

I am satisfied that the landlord has established that Ms Payne did not leave the oven and rangehood at the premises reasonably clean, did not tidy the lawns at the end of the tenancy (in particular a strip of lawn alongside the fence), and did not leave all chattels provided for her benefit (the heat pump remote was missing), as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The evidence establishes, in particular the photographs provided by the landlord, that the carpets at the premises were heavily stained during the tenancy and required replacement. The carpets were new at the tenancy commencement. I am also satisfied that a kitchen drawer was damaged by the removal of the drawer front. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and Ms Payne has not disproved liability for it: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The amounts ordered are proved. Betterment and depreciation and have been taken into account in the amount ordered for replacing the carpets and the painting of the walls. Suppression
Ms Thompson-Wise said that she would support an application by the tenant for name suppression. Ms Payne said she would prefer her name and identifying details not to be published.
The starting point when considering whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion in the tenant’s favour is the principle of open justice. The usual situation in law is that judicial proceedings are open unless the circumstances are exceptional: Victim X v Television New Zealand Ltd [2003] NZLR 220 at [20].
Section 95A(4) of the Act provides an exception to that general rule. It provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings. However, section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of that party be suppressed.
Ms Thompson-Wise said that she supports nonpublication of the tenant’s name because of the circumstances, as described by Ms Payne, that caused the damage to the walls and doors.
I accept that it is in the tenant’s interest that the decision is not published. On the other side of the scale I must weigh the public interest. I consider that there is public interest in publication of the tenant’s name. There is other damage, in particular the extensive damage to the carpets, that was not claimed to have been damaged in the same circumstances as the damage to the doors and walls. I consider it to be a legitimate interest for potential future landlords to be aware of the decision as it may be influence the decision to enter a tenancy agreement with the tenant.
Taking into consideration the parties’ interest and the public interest, I find the public interest considerations outweigh the parties’ interest considerations. I therefore decline the application for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

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 5393783 — net $3,713.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Tidying lawns	$80.00		Tidying lawns
Cleaning the oven & rangehood	$231.47		Cleaning the oven & rangehood
Replace carpets	$2,381.00		Replace carpets
Repair walls	$500.00		Repair walls
Replace doors	$400.00		Replace doors
Replace missing heat pump remote	$55.66		Replace missing heat pump remote
Replace missing kitchen drawer front	$97.36		Replace missing kitchen drawer front
Amount paid by tenant for the claims		$32.00	Amount paid by tenant for the claims
Total award	$3,745.49	$32.00
Net award	$3,713.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,713.49

Claims and awards for application 5393783 — net $3,713.49 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Tidying lawns

Amount: $80.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Tidying lawns

Cleaning the oven & rangehood

Amount: $231.47
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning the oven & rangehood

Replace carpets

Amount: $2,381.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace carpets

Repair walls

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair walls

Replace doors

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace doors

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage

Order

Jeneil Marie Payne must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $3,713.49 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Thompson-Wise represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for the costs to clean the premises, tidy the lawns, and repair damage following the end of the tenancy. The landlord also claimed the cost to remove rubbish, but Ms Thompson-Wise withdrew that claim at the hearing.
Ms Payne accepts the claim for damage to four doors at the premises and the damage to the walls.

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

I am satisfied that the landlord has established that Ms Payne did not leave the oven and rangehood at the premises reasonably clean, did not tidy the lawns at the end of the tenancy (in particular a strip of lawn alongside the fence), and did not leave all chattels provided for her benefit (the heat pump remote was missing), as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The evidence establishes, in particular the photographs provided by the landlord, that the carpets at the premises were heavily stained during the tenancy and required replacement. The carpets were new at the tenancy commencement. I am also satisfied that a kitchen drawer was damaged by the removal of the drawer front. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear and Ms Payne has not disproved liability for it: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The amounts ordered are proved. Betterment and depreciation and have been taken into account in the amount ordered for replacing the carpets and the painting of the walls. Suppression
Ms Thompson-Wise said that she would support an application by the tenant for name suppression. Ms Payne said she would prefer her name and identifying details not to be published.
The starting point when considering whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion in the tenant’s favour is the principle of open justice. The usual situation in law is that judicial proceedings are open unless the circumstances are exceptional: Victim X v Television New Zealand Ltd [2003] NZLR 220 at [20].
Section 95A(4) of the Act provides an exception to that general rule. It provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings. However, section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of that party be suppressed.
Ms Thompson-Wise said that she supports nonpublication of the tenant’s name because of the circumstances, as described by Ms Payne, that caused the damage to the walls and doors.
I accept that it is in the tenant’s interest that the decision is not published. On the other side of the scale I must weigh the public interest. I consider that there is public interest in publication of the tenant’s name. There is other damage, in particular the extensive damage to the carpets, that was not claimed to have been damaged in the same circumstances as the damage to the doors and walls. I consider it to be a legitimate interest for potential future landlords to be aware of the decision as it may be influence the decision to enter a tenancy agreement with the tenant.
Taking into consideration the parties’ interest and the public interest, I find the public interest considerations outweigh the parties’ interest considerations. I therefore decline the application for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393783 — Property damage at 50 Oakhampton Street, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393783 — Property damage at 50 Oakhampton Street, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Frequently asked questions