What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4382661 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 4382661?

Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4382661?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4382661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9317356-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4382661 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 4382661?

Compensation: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4382661?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4382661?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9317356-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4382661 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4382661 — net $420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for painting premises	$400.00	Compensation for painting premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$420.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$420.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the name and identifying details for the tenants.
Gjorgjevik Investment Limited must pay [The applicant/s] the sum of $420.44 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionTenant Compensation for painting premises$400.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenants$420.44

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider a claim filed by the tenants against the landlord. The matter returns to the Tribunal by way of a rehearing granted. The landlord was overseas at the time of the original hearing, and I therefore did not have an opportunity to hear from him at the first hearing. A rehearing was granted, and I now hear the matter afresh.
The background in this case as far as this claim is concerned, is not particularly involved.
The tenants initially moved into the building in a downstairs unit, on or about 19 May 2018. Then on 20 July 2019 the tenants moved into the unit upstairs after the previous tenants moved out. The landlord was the same.
The tenants moved out of the premises on or about 23 July 2022.
A dispute arose as to damage to walls of a child’s bedroom. As set out further below, the landlord considered that the walls had been damaged and that the tenants should pay for the remediation costs. The landlord presented a quotation for $500.00, but the tenants elected to do the work themselves at a cost of $400.00.
After the tenancy ended, the tenants report finding that they were not liable to undertake the repainting work, and have now filed this claim in the Tribunal to have the cost expended for that painting work recovered. Tenant’s case
The tenants state that on moving out of the premises the landlord was not happy with the wall of one bedroom, particularly chips on the wall, which the landlord wanted to be addressed. The landlord obtained a quote $500.00 which the tenants would have needed to pay to repair and repaint the walls. The tenants considered that was too high, and they could not afford it. Because of that the tenants advised they would do the work themselves, and in the process painted the other bedroom to keep the landlord happy. The tenants claim $150.00 for the paint, and $250.00 for the painting work.
The tenants say they contacted tenancy services, and were advised that they should not be paying for the wall remediation, as that would be fair wear and tear.
The tenants submit the chips on the wall were caused by a headboard, they did not know the damage had occurred, and it was not intentional in any way. Landlord’s case
The landlord’s position is that the tenants had damaged the wall in the bedroom, and the landlord had a quotation of $500.00 in order to do that work, but it was agreed with the tenants at the end of the tenancy that the tenants would pay for that work themselves.
The landlord considers the tenancy was in very good condition when the tenants moved into the premises, and that the tenants damaged the premises at the end of the tenancy, and that damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
The landlord does not consider he should be liable for paying for the repair of the tenant’s damage. Analysis
The question I must determine, is who is liable for the repair cost for the bedroom wall, the tenants, or the landlord?
As I explained to the parties at the hearing today, damage resulting from fair wear and tear is the responsibility of the landlord, and tenants are only liable for damage caused carelessly or intentionally.
In this case the tenants lived in the unit for some 3 years. That is relevant, because when assessing if damage arises from fair wear and tear, obviously if someone lives in a dwelling for a longer period of time the more extensive damage from fair wear and tear is likely to be, compared with a short duration. I note at the hearing the landlord indicated that he would often be refreshing tenancies every three years or so with new tenants moving in.
It is also relevant to note that the tenancy contained children, and it can be accepted that children living in a dwelling will be harder on wall than would an adult in general.
At the hearing the landlord showed a video (supplied by the tenants) of the walls of the bedroom. For the most part there are minor marks on the walls that would certainly be fair wear and tear. But there are also areas of chips to the walls. The tenant’s evidence was that the chips were behind furniture, in particular bed headboards, and the headboard caused the chips. That is credible.
Taking into account the duration of the tenancy, I am not persuaded that the damage to the bedroom walls would be beyond fair wear and tear, meaning the damage would fall to the landlord.
However, even if I were wrong in that finding, I would not have concluded that the tenants are liable for the damage, because I cannot see that the damage has been caused careless or intentionally.
Certainly there is no evidence that the tenants intentionally caused damage to the walls.
The question would then be, did the tenants cause the damage carelessly. I accept the evidence from the tenants that they did not know the chips had been caused, because it was behind furniture. That is a credible explanation. In circumstances where damage was being caused from ordinary living, unknown to the tenants, I could not conclude that the damage was caused carelessly.
Therefore even if I had not concluded that the damage was fair wear and tear, I would have concluded the tenants were not liable for the damage because it would not likely be careless or intentional damage.
I accept the tenants paid the $400.00 claimed, and that must be refunded to the tenants.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4382661 — net $420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for painting premises	$400.00	Compensation for painting premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$420.44
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$420.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the name and identifying details for the tenants.
Gjorgjevik Investment Limited must pay [The applicant/s] the sum of $420.44 immediately, calculated as follows: DescriptionTenant Compensation for painting premises$400.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total payable by Landlord to Tenants$420.44

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider a claim filed by the tenants against the landlord. The matter returns to the Tribunal by way of a rehearing granted. The landlord was overseas at the time of the original hearing, and I therefore did not have an opportunity to hear from him at the first hearing. A rehearing was granted, and I now hear the matter afresh.
The background in this case as far as this claim is concerned, is not particularly involved.
The tenants initially moved into the building in a downstairs unit, on or about 19 May 2018. Then on 20 July 2019 the tenants moved into the unit upstairs after the previous tenants moved out. The landlord was the same.
The tenants moved out of the premises on or about 23 July 2022.
A dispute arose as to damage to walls of a child’s bedroom. As set out further below, the landlord considered that the walls had been damaged and that the tenants should pay for the remediation costs. The landlord presented a quotation for $500.00, but the tenants elected to do the work themselves at a cost of $400.00.
After the tenancy ended, the tenants report finding that they were not liable to undertake the repainting work, and have now filed this claim in the Tribunal to have the cost expended for that painting work recovered. Tenant’s case
The tenants state that on moving out of the premises the landlord was not happy with the wall of one bedroom, particularly chips on the wall, which the landlord wanted to be addressed. The landlord obtained a quote $500.00 which the tenants would have needed to pay to repair and repaint the walls. The tenants considered that was too high, and they could not afford it. Because of that the tenants advised they would do the work themselves, and in the process painted the other bedroom to keep the landlord happy. The tenants claim $150.00 for the paint, and $250.00 for the painting work.
The tenants say they contacted tenancy services, and were advised that they should not be paying for the wall remediation, as that would be fair wear and tear.
The tenants submit the chips on the wall were caused by a headboard, they did not know the damage had occurred, and it was not intentional in any way. Landlord’s case
The landlord’s position is that the tenants had damaged the wall in the bedroom, and the landlord had a quotation of $500.00 in order to do that work, but it was agreed with the tenants at the end of the tenancy that the tenants would pay for that work themselves.
The landlord considers the tenancy was in very good condition when the tenants moved into the premises, and that the tenants damaged the premises at the end of the tenancy, and that damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
The landlord does not consider he should be liable for paying for the repair of the tenant’s damage. Analysis
The question I must determine, is who is liable for the repair cost for the bedroom wall, the tenants, or the landlord?
As I explained to the parties at the hearing today, damage resulting from fair wear and tear is the responsibility of the landlord, and tenants are only liable for damage caused carelessly or intentionally.
In this case the tenants lived in the unit for some 3 years. That is relevant, because when assessing if damage arises from fair wear and tear, obviously if someone lives in a dwelling for a longer period of time the more extensive damage from fair wear and tear is likely to be, compared with a short duration. I note at the hearing the landlord indicated that he would often be refreshing tenancies every three years or so with new tenants moving in.
It is also relevant to note that the tenancy contained children, and it can be accepted that children living in a dwelling will be harder on wall than would an adult in general.
At the hearing the landlord showed a video (supplied by the tenants) of the walls of the bedroom. For the most part there are minor marks on the walls that would certainly be fair wear and tear. But there are also areas of chips to the walls. The tenant’s evidence was that the chips were behind furniture, in particular bed headboards, and the headboard caused the chips. That is credible.
Taking into account the duration of the tenancy, I am not persuaded that the damage to the bedroom walls would be beyond fair wear and tear, meaning the damage would fall to the landlord.
However, even if I were wrong in that finding, I would not have concluded that the tenants are liable for the damage, because I cannot see that the damage has been caused careless or intentionally.
Certainly there is no evidence that the tenants intentionally caused damage to the walls.
The question would then be, did the tenants cause the damage carelessly. I accept the evidence from the tenants that they did not know the chips had been caused, because it was behind furniture. That is a credible explanation. In circumstances where damage was being caused from ordinary living, unknown to the tenants, I could not conclude that the damage was caused carelessly.
Therefore even if I had not concluded that the damage was fair wear and tear, I would have concluded the tenants were not liable for the damage because it would not likely be careless or intentional damage.
I accept the tenants paid the $400.00 claimed, and that must be refunded to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4382661 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4382661 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions