What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4617991?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $620.44 (6212340-014) to Ray White

How much money was awarded in case 4617991?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Floor: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617991?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9558844-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4617991?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $620.44 (6212340-014) to Ray White

How much money was awarded in case 4617991?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Floor: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617991?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9558844-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

54 Craigs Way, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4617991 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4617991. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Floor	$500.00	Repairs: Floor
Repairs: Wall	$100.00	Repairs: Wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $620.44 (6212340-014) to Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Acting Agent Zhijian Lin immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.06 (6212340-014) to Michael Parfitt immediately.
The claim for cleaning costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 landlord submitted that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and provided information to the Tribunal concerning the cleanliness of some walls in the house, a window in the garage, and a shower. Cleaning costs of $230.00 were sought.
Mr Parfitt provided evidence that he had engaged the services of a professional cleaner at the end of the tenancy and paid $687.75 for their cleaning services. He then engaged with the landlord about the cleanliness of the property, and following feedback he further cleaned the walls. Mr Parfitt provided photographs that he said were taken after the photographs provided to the Tribunal by the landlord, and after he had further cleaned the walls.
The landlord’s photographs show some marks to some walls, including marks that may have been made by a cat that was included in the tenancy agreement. The walls while not being pristine in my view, do not go so far as to be unreasonably unclean given the length of the tenancy.
The photographs of the walls that Mr Parfitt provided show the walls to be more than reasonably clean.
The photograph of the shower provided by the landlord, does not disclose it to be in an unreasonably unclean state.
Overall, the property appears to me to have been left reasonably clean and tidy. I am cognisant that Mr Parfitt engaged a professional cleaning service, and their professional standards were met. That is not to say the landlord may not wish to conduct a deep clean between tenancies, and that this would probably improve the state of cleanliness of the property even further. That is the landlord’s prerogative, and is reasonable conduct of a responsible landlord.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the hallway floor. b. A hole in a bedroom wall that has been repaired but not painted.
The landlord claimed that the damage to the hallway floor outside the laundry must have been caused by water from the laundry, which caused the particle board flooring to “explode”.
Mr Parfitt denied knowledge of any water leaking from the laundry, but he did concede that during the month of April 2023 he was away from the property for an extended period, during which time his flatmates continued to live there.
Mr Parfitt accepted that the damage to the flooring involved the degradation of the particle board flooring.
I believe the damage to the flooring is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered covers standard insurance excess for this type of damage.
The landlord sought compensation for several scrapes and knocks to the walls of the property including one hole that had been repaired but not repainted.
Mr Parfitt submitted that the knocks and scrapes were caused by moving furniture around the house and in the general day to day living of him and his flatmates.
I am not satisfied that any of the scrapes and knocks exceed fair wear and tear of a rental property: Other than the one hole in the wall, none of them stood out as could only have been caused by a careless act.
Mr Parfitt submitted that he repaired the hole in the wall including sanding it, and that he contacted the landlord to get a colour match for the paint. As the landlord did not get back to him with the colour, he was unable to finish the job by applying a coat of paint.
The compensation that I award for the damage to the walls is to cover the painting of this repair.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
Because Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Acting Agent Zhijian Lin has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4617991. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Floor	$500.00	Repairs: Floor
Repairs: Wall	$100.00	Repairs: Wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $620.44 (6212340-014) to Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Acting Agent Zhijian Lin immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.06 (6212340-014) to Michael Parfitt immediately.
The claim for cleaning costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 landlord submitted that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and provided information to the Tribunal concerning the cleanliness of some walls in the house, a window in the garage, and a shower. Cleaning costs of $230.00 were sought.
Mr Parfitt provided evidence that he had engaged the services of a professional cleaner at the end of the tenancy and paid $687.75 for their cleaning services. He then engaged with the landlord about the cleanliness of the property, and following feedback he further cleaned the walls. Mr Parfitt provided photographs that he said were taken after the photographs provided to the Tribunal by the landlord, and after he had further cleaned the walls.
The landlord’s photographs show some marks to some walls, including marks that may have been made by a cat that was included in the tenancy agreement. The walls while not being pristine in my view, do not go so far as to be unreasonably unclean given the length of the tenancy.
The photographs of the walls that Mr Parfitt provided show the walls to be more than reasonably clean.
The photograph of the shower provided by the landlord, does not disclose it to be in an unreasonably unclean state.
Overall, the property appears to me to have been left reasonably clean and tidy. I am cognisant that Mr Parfitt engaged a professional cleaning service, and their professional standards were met. That is not to say the landlord may not wish to conduct a deep clean between tenancies, and that this would probably improve the state of cleanliness of the property even further. That is the landlord’s prerogative, and is reasonable conduct of a responsible landlord.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the hallway floor. b. A hole in a bedroom wall that has been repaired but not painted.
The landlord claimed that the damage to the hallway floor outside the laundry must have been caused by water from the laundry, which caused the particle board flooring to “explode”.
Mr Parfitt denied knowledge of any water leaking from the laundry, but he did concede that during the month of April 2023 he was away from the property for an extended period, during which time his flatmates continued to live there.
Mr Parfitt accepted that the damage to the flooring involved the degradation of the particle board flooring.
I believe the damage to the flooring is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered covers standard insurance excess for this type of damage.
The landlord sought compensation for several scrapes and knocks to the walls of the property including one hole that had been repaired but not repainted.
Mr Parfitt submitted that the knocks and scrapes were caused by moving furniture around the house and in the general day to day living of him and his flatmates.
I am not satisfied that any of the scrapes and knocks exceed fair wear and tear of a rental property: Other than the one hole in the wall, none of them stood out as could only have been caused by a careless act.
Mr Parfitt submitted that he repaired the hole in the wall including sanding it, and that he contacted the landlord to get a colour match for the paint. As the landlord did not get back to him with the colour, he was unable to finish the job by applying a coat of paint.
The compensation that I award for the damage to the walls is to cover the painting of this repair.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
Because Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Acting Agent Zhijian Lin has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617991 — Property damage at 54 Craigs Way, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617991 — Property damage at 54 Craigs Way, Hobsonville, Auckland 0616

At a glance

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions