What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4537229 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4537229?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4537229?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4537229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9474762-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4537229 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4537229?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4537229?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4537229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9474762-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4537229 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4537229. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation - Damage to carpet	$350.00	Compensation - Damage to carpet
Painting	$300.00	Painting
Cleaning	$100.00	19. Having regard to these factors I will award compensation of $300.00 for the incomplete painting.

The adjournment order dated 13 July 2023 refers.

The parties were not able to reach a settlement outside of the Tribunal.

The second hearing took place on 28 September 2023. [The landlord’s representative] (representing the landlord) attended in person at the [Event location suppressed] Court. [The tenant/s] attended by phone.

[The landlord’s representative] clarified that the claim against the bond relates to: a. Damage to the carpet in the bedroom. b. Completion of painting. c. Cleaning. Damage to carpet

[The landlord’s representative] provided a quote from [Carpet installation company] for $1,094.80 to supply and install new carpet in the bedroom.

As noted in the previous order, [The tenant/s] does not dispute that she is liable for the damage to the carpet (although she does dispute the landlord’s allegation that it is urine damage).

[The landlord’s representative] did not have the carpet replaced. The property was sold after [The tenant/s]’s tenancy ended. [The landlord’s representative] submitted that the condition of the carpet, and the incomplete painting (discussed below) were factored into the sale price of the house.

If a tenant damages part of the property and the only remedy is replacement, the landlord is entitled to replace that part of the property, but the Tribunal will take depreciation into account when considering an appropriate monetary award.

The carpet was approximately 12-15 years old when the tenancy ended.

My finding is that [The tenant/s] is not liable for the cost of new replacement carpet on the grounds that: a. The landlord has not incurred this cost; and b. Even if the landlord had incurred this cost, the tenant’s liability would be reduced significantly once depreciation is taken into account.

Per my comments in the previous order, I will award compensation of $350.00. Painting

[The tenant/s] was given permission to paint certain rooms inside the house. This is noted in the tenancy agreement.

[The tenant/s] did not complete the painting of a wall in one room, and had only applied an undercoat to the walls in another room, a small bedroom.

I accept that it was an implied term of the permission to paint that [The tenant/s] would carry out the work to a reasonable (non-specialist) standard.

[The landlord’s representative] submitted that the cost of a professional painter to paint both rooms would be approximately $1,345.00.

[The tenant/s] submitted that part of the house (a hallway ceiling) was not painted when she moved in, and she submitted that it was unreasonable for the landlord to hold her liable for incomplete painting when he was apparently unconcerned about the hallway ceiling.

My finding is that [The tenant/s] does have some liability here. She and [The landlord’s representative] freely made an agreement that she could paint the walls in the main living areas, bedrooms, and hallway. An implicit part of that deal was that [The tenant/s] would carry out the work to an acceptable standard.

However, it is relevant that: a. [The landlord’s representative] did not incur any painting costs at the end of the tenancy. b. The painted walls were approximately 12-15 years old at the end of the tenancy. The ‘usual’ life expectancy of painted walls for depreciation purposes is 5-8 years.

Having regard to these factors I will award compensation of $300.00 for the incomplete painting. Cleaning

Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.

[The landlord’s representative] provided some additional photographs.

The landlord’s evidence shows a few areas required a small amount of work to bring them to a reasonably clean and tidy standard.

In the previous order I noted [The tenant/s]’s argument that the toilet seat was stained but not dirty. [The landlord’s representative] did not provide photographs to show that toilet seat was improved after cleaning.

The landlord’s statement that parts of the premises were “filthy” is not supported by the evidence provided to me.

I will award $100.00 for cleaning. Filing fee, name suppression

Both parties have been partially successful in their applications, and each must bear their own cost of the filing fee.

Both parties sought name suppression. Neither party was “substantially successful in the proceedings 1 .

The Tribunal has a discretion to grant name suppression to any party having regard to the interests of the party and the public interest.

In this instance there is limited public interest in publication of the parties’ names. The property has now been sold. The issues in the dispute are unexceptional.

Name suppression is granted to both parties.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4537229. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation - Damage to carpet	$350.00	Compensation - Damage to carpet
Painting	$300.00	Painting
Cleaning	$100.00	19. Having regard to these factors I will award compensation of $300.00 for the incomplete painting.