What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4468580 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] owes [The landlord/s] $2,122.50 from the bond held by the landlord,

How much money was awarded in case 4468580?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Overpayment Of Rent: $620.00 awarded to tenant; Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Burn On Exterior: $192.50 awarded to landlord; Foyer Walls & Interior Door: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Garage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Hallway: $350.00 awarded to landlord; master bedroom & office: carpet, doo…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet Bedroom 2: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4468580?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4468580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10034472-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4468580 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] owes [The landlord/s] $2,122.50 from the bond held by the landlord,

How much money was awarded in case 4468580?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Overpayment Of Rent: $620.00 awarded to tenant; Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Burn On Exterior: $192.50 awarded to landlord; Foyer Walls & Interior Door: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Garage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Hallway: $350.00 awarded to landlord; master bedroom & office: carpet, doo…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet Bedroom 2: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4468580?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4468580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10034472-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4468580 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4468580 — net $2,122.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$200.00		Carpet cleaning
Repairs: burn on exterior	$192.50		Repairs: burn on exterior
Replace carpet bedroom 2	$500.00		Replace carpet bedroom 2
Repairs: hallway	$350.00		Repairs: hallway
Repairs: garage	$150.00		Repairs: garage
Repairs: bathroom vinyl and vanity	$500.00		Repairs: bathroom vinyl and vanity
Repairs: master bedroom & office: carpet, door frame	$500.00		Repairs: master bedroom & office: carpet, door frame
Repairs: foyer walls & interior door	$350.00		Repairs: foyer walls & interior door
Overpayment of rent		$620.00	Overpayment of rent
Total award	$2,742.50	$620.00
Net award		$2,122.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,122.50

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for a refund of $620.00 for overpaid rent, and compensation for stress.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

These matters come before the Tribunal today by way of rehearing.

Whilst I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing; the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. Is the tenant entitled to a refund of $620.00 for overpaid rent?

The landlord says that the photographs provided by the tenant which show cash on top of the signed tenancy agreement are fake, and the tenant did not mention any photographs at the previous hearing. The landlord says the tenant paid $280.00 on 16 October 2020 (moving in day) to make up the shortfall of bond and $620.00 rent was paid for one week in advance as is usual practice. The landlord relies on their rent records and a tenancy checklist.

I also heard from the property manager, [the landlord/s], who dealt with the tenant. [The landlord/s] says that she told the tenant she would have to deposit the bond before handing over the keys, and she remembers that the bond transfer forms were completed. [The landlord/s] says that when the tenant signed the tenancy agreement on 29 September she did not pay any cash, but she subsequently paid $280.00 cash when she picked up the keys on 16 October. [The landlord/s] says a receipt was provided for the $280.00. [The landlord/s] disputes that the tenant took any photographs in her presence, and she cannot remember anything about rent in advance.

On balance, I find that the tenant paid $900.00 in cash to the landlord on 29 September 2020. I heard direct evidence from both the tenant and her mother and viewed both of their bank statements provided. I do not find it likely that the photographs provided are fake as the date on the metadata is 29 September 2020, and I find it unlikely that this has been deliberately changed or altered by the tenant. I accept her evidence that the photos were on an old phone which was not recovered until after the first Tribunal hearing. The tenant gave convincing and compelling evidence that the cash was divided into two piles of $280.00 for the balance of bond and $620.00 for the rent in advance. I accept her evidence that she took a couple of quick photos when the property manager left the room. The landlord was unable to provide any receipt for the $280.00 cash alleged to have been paid on 16 October and I find this unlikely as the tenant had already paid $620.00 by bank transfer for rent on that day.

In conclusion, I find it more likely than not that the tenant secured the premises on 29 September by completing bond transfer forms for $2,200.00 and paying the balance of bond ($280.000) and rent in advance ($620.00) for a total of $900.00 cash. I also find that the tenant paid $620.00 again on the day she moved in as that is what she was told to do by the landlord which effectively left her two weeks in advance.

I order that that the tenant be refunded the $620.00 she overpaid, and this will be taken into account after I deal with the landlord’s claims.

I decline to make an award for emotional stress. While I accept that the Tribunal process has been stressful for the tenant, the landlord has legitimate claims which would have required a hearing in any event. There is no doubt that the tenant has had extremely distressful recent life events and I extend every sympathy to her, but I am not persuaded that any compensatory award should be made for emotional distress for these proceedings.

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 carpets were not left reasonably clean as they were stained in places and smelled of dog.

The landlord seeks $200.00 for carpet cleaning, and I award this in full.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: (1) Lounge/dining walls (2) Burn mark on exterior cladding. (3) Bedroom 2 carpet damaged by nail polish. (4) Master bedroom & office: doors, door frame, walls, and carpet burns (5) Bathroom vinyl and vanity (6) Entry door & foyer (7) Hallway & stairs (8) Garage

The landlord seeks $4,000.00 for 8 insurance excesses of $500.00 each; except for the lounge/dining walls as they are seeking $300.00 for this area. The landlord has also provided two quotes for repairs: $2,750.00 and $2415.00 which includes walls, doors, and door frames.

Appellate courts have emphasised that the assessment of the proper amount of compensation is a question of fact in each case; that it is not an exact science and that a common sense approach is required. There are no general or absolute rules for calculating the amount of compensation, but the primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.

I agree with the tenant that marks on walls in the lounge and dining area are mostly scrapes, dings and dents which amount to fair wear and tear for 5 occupants over a 26 month period. The landlord says a hole had been repaired by the tenant but not to a reasonable standard. While I gave a preliminary view at the hearing that the $300.00 claimed did not appear unreasonable, on reflection and after studying the photographs at length, I am unable to conclude the repair needed attention as the photographs are not determinative. This part of the claim is not proven.

The tenant does not dispute liability for the exterior burn mark, but she does not agree with the $500.00 insurance excess claimed. As the landlord was unable to provide any invoice or quote for this job, I am unable to find that $500.00 is representative of the landlord’s loss. I prefer the quote and receipt provided by the tenant of $386.50. I have deducted $194.25 for materials as the tenant has already paid for this and remains at the premises. I award $192.50.

The carpet in bedroom 2 was damaged by nail polish and had to be replaced. I award the $500.00 excess as claimed.

I award the excess of $500.00 for the master bedroom and office to cover the damage to doors, door frame, walls, and carpet burns. The tenant did not dispute this.

The tenant does not dispute that the downstairs bathroom vanity had burn marks and the vinyl was damaged by urine. I award the $500.00 excess claimed for both items.

The entry door and foyer have some minor damage to a wall and an internal door. I find that the front door already had some pre-existing damage, so this part of the claim is not proven. I decline to award the full insurance excess and instead award $350.00 as fair, reasonable, and proportionate compensation.

I find that there is damage to the hallway as a hole repair was carried out by or on behalf of the tenant but not to a reasonable standard, and the paint is a different colour than the original. There is also a small hole in a cupboard door. There was no evidence provided regarding damage to the walls on the stairwell, but this is included in the amount claimed. I decline to award the insurance excess and instead award $350.00.

I find that the tenant is liable for only one hole in the garage therefore I award $150.00 for this repair.

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 both parties have had some success in their claims, I decline to make any award for the filing fees.

Both parties agree to name suppression.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4468580 — net $2,122.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet cleaning	$200.00		Carpet cleaning
Repairs: burn on exterior	$192.50		Repairs: burn on exterior
Replace carpet bedroom 2	$500.00		Replace carpet bedroom 2
Repairs: hallway	$350.00		Repairs: hallway
Repairs: garage	$150.00		Repairs: garage
Repairs: bathroom vinyl and vanity	$500.00		Repairs: bathroom vinyl and vanity
Repairs: master bedroom & office: carpet, door frame	$500.00		Repairs: master bedroom & office: carpet, door frame
Repairs: foyer walls & interior door	$350.00		Repairs: foyer walls & interior door
Overpayment of rent		$620.00	Overpayment of rent
Total award	$2,742.50	$620.00
Net award		$2,122.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$2,122.50

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant has applied for a refund of $620.00 for overpaid rent, and compensation for stress.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

These matters come before the Tribunal today by way of rehearing.

I order that that the tenant be refunded the $620.00 she overpaid, and this will be taken into account after I deal with the landlord’s claims.

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

The carpets were not left reasonably clean as they were stained in places and smelled of dog.

The landlord seeks $200.00 for carpet cleaning, and I award this in full.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The carpet in bedroom 2 was damaged by nail polish and had to be replaced. I award the $500.00 excess as claimed.

I award the excess of $500.00 for the master bedroom and office to cover the damage to doors, door frame, walls, and carpet burns. The tenant did not dispute this.

The tenant does not dispute that the downstairs bathroom vanity had burn marks and the vinyl was damaged by urine. I award the $500.00 excess claimed for both items.

I find that the tenant is liable for only one hole in the garage therefore I award $150.00 for this repair.

As both parties have had some success in their claims, I decline to make any award for the filing fees.

Both parties agree to name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4468580 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4468580 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Frequently asked questions