What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4599729?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4599729?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4599729?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4599729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9410342-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4599729?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4599729?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4599729?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4599729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9410342-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

61 Springbok Avenue, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4599729 — Property damage

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,860.00 (6177166-012) to M H Realty Limited Trading as Bayleys as Agent for Jane & John Ashworth & Sutherland immediately.
Alisa Clapham and Henry Newton must pay M H Realty Limited Trading as Bayleys as Agent for Jane & John Ashworth & Sutherland $745.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Ms Turner appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy ended on 25 April 2023. The landlord’s claim was filed on 08 June 2023.
The landlord claims are that: (i)The tenant owes rent arrears, (ii)The tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, (iii)The tenant has failed to leave the carpet in a reasonably clean condition, (iv)The tenant has failed to leave the grounds reasonably tidy, (v)The tenant has failed to replace missing light bulbs, (vi)The tenant is responsible for damage to walls, (vii)The tenant is responsible for damage to carpet caused by flooding, (viii)The tenant is responsible for damage to kitchen cupboard doors and drawers beneath the sink.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 27 February 2021. The tenant gave notice and the tenancy ended on 25 April 2023. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

The landlord claims the tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, failed to leave the carpet in a reasonably clean condition, failed to leave the grounds reasonably tidy, and failed to replace missing light bulbs
The landlord is claiming $630.00 for cleaning, $348.52 for garden maintenance, $240.00 for carpet cleaning, and $151.00 for light bulbs
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) of the Act. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) of the Act.
The landlord has produced a pre tenancy and end of tenancy inspections report, each containing photographs. Ms Turner has also provided enlarged photographs from the report. I have heard from Ms Turner, who conducted both inspections, and reviewed the photograph. I am satisfied that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The pre tenancy checklist shows that there was fly dirt on some of the ceilings near lights. This was removed during the post tenancy clean. I deduct one hour, $35.00, from the amount claimed, and award the landlord $595.00.
The carpet also had some minor stains at the commencement of the tenancy, located in the dining room and one of the bedrooms. The end of tenancy report shows additional staining beyond that present at the commencement of the tenancy. Based on the evidence I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the carpet reasonably clean, and I award compensation of $240.00.
The pre tenancy inspection report shows that the gardens were in a reasonably tidy condition at the commencement of the tenancy. However, the gardens were left overgrown at the end, and were not in a reasonable tidy condition. I award the landlord the amount claimed, which includes disposal fees.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord discovered that 5 halogen exterior lights, affixed under the eaves were not working. The landlord arranged for the fittings to be replaced with LED lights, for which the landlord is claiming the cost of the bulbs, $126.00. The landlrod also claims that 5 internal standard light bulbs had blown and required changing at a cost of $25.00.
Light bulbs are considered chattels. At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all chattels in the condition they were at the start of the tenancy, subject to fair wear and tear. There is no evidence that any of the light bulbs concerned were missing chattels. The bulbs were chattels that had been damaged. In a claim for damage the onus is on the applicant to establish that the item, in this case the light bulb, was damaged, ceased working, during the tenancy and that this damage goes beyond than fair wear and tear.
It is common knowledge that light bulbs have a finite lifespan. Furthermore, a property in which several bulbs are not working may suggest a fault with the wiring, which may or may not be the responsibility of the tenant. Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the non-functioning light bulbs were result of any act or omission by the tenant above fair wear and tear. The claim for the light bulbs is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to walls, damage to carpet caused by flooding in the kitchen, and damage to kitchen cupboard doors and drawer fronts beneath the sink.
The landlord is claiming $150.00 plus labour at the rate of $45.00 per hour to repair the walls, $550.00 plus $90.00 for the kitchen cupboard doors and drawer fronts, and $120.00 plus a plumbers cost of $134.31 for the flood damage.
To succeed with a claim for damage to the property the landlord must prove that damage to the 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 of the Act.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, which in this case is $550.00 per claim, 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) of the Act. Tenants are liable for the full cost of repairing damage that is intentional. See section 49B (1) of the Act.
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.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Walls
The landlord has produced a pre tenancy inspection report showing the condition on the walls at the commencement of the tenancy. The report records a small amount of minor damage. The end of tenancy checklist shows damage beyond that recorded at the start of the tenancy to the walls in the lounge, dining room, hallway, and each of the three bedrooms. The damage can be described as minor scratches, dents, dings, gouges, scrapes, and drawings by children, as well as stickers and decals placed on walls which appear to have damaged the paint when removed. I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for damage to the walls which is more than fair wear and tear.
The invoice produced to repair the damage to the walls includes labour associated with other unrelated tasks. The itemised claim for the walls is $150.00 plus labour at the rate of $45.00 per hour. I estimate that the repairs, which involved filling, sanding, and painting, would have taken approximately 8 hours, and on that basis, I award $400.00 labour.
The amount claimed is to repair the damaged areas only, and on that basis, I make no deduction for betterment or depreciation. The total amount awarded to repair the walls is $550.00. Damage to carpet
The property was provided with a double door upright fridge freezer, which included a built-in water dispenser. Without the agreement of the landlord the tenant removed the fridge at the end of the tenancy. There is no claim for removing the chattel. Ms Turner states that at the end of the tenancy, one of the landlord’s property managers noted the hose that attached to the fridge had been placed in the nearby sink and was still running. During the final inspection, it was discovered that the wall behind the fridge cavity was wet through to the carpet in the master bedroom on the other side of the wall. The landlord arranged for the affected carpet to be lifted and dried, and the underlay replaced.
Mr Turner states that no leak was detected by the property manager at the three-monthly inspection prior to the end of the tenancy. The tenant did not report any leak. The landlord has also produced a plumber’s invoice to replace a faulty shutoff valve associated with the water supply to the fridge.
The landlord’s theory of the case is that the hose must have been left to run on the floor before the tenant placed it in the sink, an act or omission, which has resulted in damage which is more than fair wear and tear.
I cannot accept this theory of the case. The evidence does not support the facts establishing that this was more likely than not the case. The photograph of the back of the lifted carpet shows that it has staining damage, which, in my view would have taken time to form. The plumber replaced a faulty shut off valve providing water to the dispenser. The area of floor nearby the valve is discoloured. The hose was found running and placed in the sink, not found on the floor. I cannot rule out that the shut off valve had been faulty for some time and that water may have leaked from the rear of the fridge undetected by both landlord and the tenant. The claim is declined. Kitchen cupboard doors beneath the sink.
The landlord has produced photographs taken at the end of the tenancy showing cupboard doors and drawer fronts beneath and near the sink. The cabinetry appears to be laminated particle board. The bottom edges of two doors and a drawer show signs of swelling. The landlord has produced a pre tenancy report and photographs of the cabinetry concerned at the commencement of the tenancy. The report does not record any damage, nor can any be seen in the photographs.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the damage has occurred during the tenancy. Is the damage more than fair wear and tear?
Fair wear and tear may be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. Ms Turner states that the damage is consistent with water repeatedly running out of the sink and down the face of the doors and drawers concerned. The landlord states that while some damage by swelling may be expected, that in this case the damage is more than that associated with normal use, has occurred over a relatively brief period and is therefore not consistent with fair wear and tear.
I accept the landlord’s submission that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. I am also satisfied that the damage has likely been the result of carelessness.
The total cost of repairing the damage was $1,058.00 plus $90.00 to remove and then reinstall the doors and drawer facings. The landlord is claiming $550.00, which is their insurance excess for non-intentional damage. Dealing with betterment and depreciation. The cabinetry was at least twenty years old at the start of the tenancy and in a reasonable condition. Considering the age of the cabinetry and condition at the start of the tenancy, I reduce the amount claimed by 25%, awarding the landlord $480.00. Costs
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Although the landlord has been substantially successful, they do not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4599729 — Property damage at 61 Springbok Avenue, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510

Tenancy Tribunal case 4599729 — Property damage at 61 Springbok Avenue, Whitianga, Whitianga 3510

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Property management