What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4632269 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 4632269?

Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $203.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4632269?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4632269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9499508-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4632269 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 4632269?

Cleaning: $299.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $203.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4632269?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4632269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9499508-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4632269 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4632269 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4632269 — net $902.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Painting garage damage	$300.00	Painting garage damage
Door repair	$100.00	Door repair
Lawns and rubbish removal	$203.00	Lawns and rubbish removal
Cleaning	$299.00	Cleaning
Net award	$902.00
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$902.00

Claims and awards for application 4632269 — net $902.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Painting garage damage

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Painting garage damage

Door repair

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Door repair

Lawns and rubbish removal

Amount: $203.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $299.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Net award

Landlord $902.00

Bond

Landlord $2,880.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $902.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Tbt Property Management Limited $902.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Tbt Property Management Limited: $902.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,978.00

Reasons

DescriptionLandlordTenant Painting garage damage$300.00 Door repair$100.00 Lawns and rubbish removal$203.00 Cleaning$299.00 Total award$902.00 Bond$902.00$1,978.00

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by the tenants and landlord. The landlord seeks compensation for a range of claims at the end of the tenancy, whereas the tenants seek a return of the bond.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Both parties appeared at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 25 January 2022, and was a fixed term tenancy until 25 January 2023, but the tenancy ultimately ended on 4 June 2023. The premises were brand new at the start of the tenancy, these where the first tenants in the dwelling.
At the end of the tenancy there are disputes as to the liability of the tenants with various matters. The dispute could not be resolved at mediation, so now proceeds to be determined in the Tribunal. I convened a hearing today in Manukau to hear from the parties.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
As I will consider shortly, the landlord has presented a number of compensation claims for damage to the premises. With any claim for compensation, to receive an order the party (the landlord) must incur a loss. In short the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must firstly prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
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 the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

LANDLORD CLAIMS

Paint damage

The landlord has claimed $2,875.00 for painting work inside the tenancy at the end of the tenancy, but as noted by the Tribunal, presented a quotation for that work of $1,500.00.
The landlords state that at the end of the tenancy there were patches on the wall, and in the garage of wet paint. The landlord refers to the marked up photos showing the areas of dwelling which the landlord states the tenants had painted poorly.
The tenants dispute that they had painted the walls, they consider that the areas said to be ‘wet paint’ were in fact areas that they had cleaned with Jif. The tenants were clear that they did not paint the property. The tenants noted that they vacated the premises on the 4 June, but the landlords inspection was on 8 June, and if the paint was freshly painted, it would have dried by then.
The tenants agree that in the garage they caused a hole in the wall which they patched with plastered (but did not sand or paint), but they dispute the remainder of the claim.
The landlord disputes that there was cleaning to account for the marks on the walls, the landlord maintains this was wet paint. The landlords state the exit inspection was undertaken on 5 June, and an email was sent to the tenants on 6 June including with the photographs taken at the inspection.
The tenants referred to an email with the landlord on 7 June, but the landlord then showed the Tribunal and tenants an email from 6 June, which only mentioned the rubbish.
The landlord considers that the painting patches on the wall were done in an unprofessional way. Analysis
The primary area of dispute, is whether the tenants in had damaged the walls by patch painting the walls. There was one area of agreed damage in the garage, and I will address that separately.
The landlords primary claim is that the tenants have damaged and repainted patches over multiple walls inside the tenancy. The landlords position is that the work was shoddy, and the colour of the paint was different. The tenants dispute painting any walls, they say the marks on the walls were not paint, but the residue of wiping the walls with Jif.
Having considered the photographs, and hearing from the parties, I am very confident in accepting the evidence and position advanced by the tenants.
Firstly I found the tenants to be reliable witnesses. The tenants have accepted some claims without any argument (ie the cleaning, lawns and rubbish removal), and their explanation as to how the marks on the wall occurred is credible.
Secondly, having considered the photographs, I agree with the tenants that the photographs would be consistent with the residue left from wiping the walls and doors with an abrasive cream cleaner, such as Jif. I am aware that Jif has a very fine material in the cleaner that does leave a residue when the liquid evaporates and the product dries. Looking that the photographs, they have the appearance of wipe marks, or more particular the dried residue left after the walls were wiped.
Thirdly the photograph provided by the landlord of a substance on fingers looks more like a dry cleaning residue than paint. Further there is merit to the position of the tenants, that even if the landlords inspection was the day after the walls had been repainted, the paint would have dried by then. But if what the landlord wiped onto their fingers was the abrasive residue of the cleaner, that would remain on the walls for a long period.
In short the landlord has not established that the tenants had in fact caused any damage to the walls in the first instance, so the painting claim, with the exception of the garage, must be dismissed.
As it relates to the wall damage in the garage, the tenants agree that they caused that damage. The damage has been plastered, but otherwise not finished. That damage has occurred during the tenancy, and is more than fair wear and tear. The onus is then on the tenants to show it was not careless or intentional damage, and they have not done so. It is reasonable that the tenants provide some contribution to the painting costs for that repair. The invoice has not been allocated for specific damage as such, so I cannot determine the amount to order on the basis of the invoice. The best I can do is to step back and consider what a fair amount to order would be, and having done so, consider a fair order to prepare and paint the garage wall hole would be $300.00 given the size of the damage, and extent of remediation work needed. Door lock repair
The landlord states that when they went to the tenancy, the door was not locking. The landlord states that when batteries where installed, they found that the door was not locking. The landlord states the tradesman said the lock or door had been bent. The landlord considers the tenants must have hit the door or bent it somehow.
The tenants state that they had no issues with the door locking during the tenancy, and they therefore dispute damaging the door.
The landlord considers that the fact the batteries had been removed from the door lock, and the fact the door was not locked at the time of the exit inspection, is evidence the lock would not work. Analysis
The landlord’s position is that the tenants had damaged the door lock during the tenancy. The tenants dispute that is the case.
The best evidence I have, is the invoice from the tradesman who repaired the door. He has recorded on the invoice: Repair / align front door (frame damage)
I accept the evidence of the landlord, that they found the door would not lock properly. That would be consistent with the invoice from the tradesman, because if there was no problem with the door, then presumably he would not have recorded needing to repair or align the door, or that it was damaged.
I have set out the legal considerations above, but it is firstly for the landlord to establish that the tenancy was damaged during the tenancy, which I find the landlord has established. The landlord then needs to prove the damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the landlord has proven that too. The invoice records there to be “frame damage”. It is unlikely that a door frame would get “damaged” from fair wear and tear of the door.
The onus then shifts to the tenants to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, and I find they have not established that.
The invoiced amount for the repair was $100.00, and that is ordered in full. Door lock battery
The landlord seeks costs of $7.90 for the replacement of a battery in the door lock. The landlord said the battery was missing from the door.
The tenants say that the battery was replaced during the tenancy when needed, and they oppose this claim, they dispute it was missing. Analysis
I find the tenants are not liable for replacing the battery lock for legal reasons.
Section 46 of the RTA applies, that provision confirms: (1) The landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
Plainly the obligation to provide working locks sits with the landlord. If the landlord provides a lock which requires a battery to operate, then it will be for the landlord to replace the battery when needed, to put that another way, to maintain the lock to ensure the premises are reasonably secure.
The situation is analogous to a mechanical lock. If for example a standard door lock required replacement during a tenancy from being worn out, then the landlord would be required to replace the lock. I cannot see why a battery becoming ‘worn out’ would be materially different.
This claim is dismissed. Lawn work and rubbish removal
The tenants consent to this order being made to the sum of $203.00. Cleaning
The tenants consent to this order being made to the sum of $299.00. Minor changes
The landlords final claim was filed on the basis of a ‘Section 42B’ claim. The landlord seeks an order of $1,500.00.
The landlords state that the tenants laid artificial grass mats on the tenancy without the landlords consent damaging the existing grass. The landlord states that the landscaper charged $1,500 in order to remediate the grass. The landlord also states that there was painting work involved with this claim. When I asked the landlord to provide a copy of the invoice for this work, the landlord could not do so.
The tenants state that this work was part of the lawn work that they had already agreed to pay. The tenants said that when they moved in there was no grass, only dirt, so they placed the grass mats, but accept that they did forget to remove the mat on the side of the house. Analysis
Section 42B is a provision which permits tenants to make minor changes to the tenancy with the consent of the landlord. Subsection 4 requires that the tenants must at the end of the tenancy: ...return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor change was made.
In this case the landlords position is that the tenants placed artificial grass outside the house, and at the end of the tenancy the tenants did not remove it. The landlord states that grass seed had been placed on these areas, and because of the artificial grass being placed on top of the seed, it did not grow, and that the lawn person needed to resew the lawn seed.
The landlord states that costs of $1,500 were incurred for this work, but provided no evidence of that. In my view that sort of cost for sewing a small area of lawn is very unlikely.
Despite the fact that the landlord has not established any loss here, I find that the tenants have not breached their obligation under section 42B(4). The tenants provided photographs of the outside of the tenancy when they moved in, and it was dirt only – there was no grass. Whether seed had been planted I cannot be sure, but certainly there was no grass. So when I consider the legal test, did the tenants return the tenancy in “substantially the same condition” as they received it, the answer is ‘yes’. The tenants rented a tenancy with no grass outside the premises, and once the artificial grass was removed, there would have only been dirt under that product, so the premises were in largely the same way as they received it.
The landlord has not established any other minor works the tenants did that they would be liable for.
This claim is dismissed.

TENANTS CLAIM

The tenants claim is simply in relation to a release of the bond. The bond release of course depends on the degree of success each party had in the claim from the landlord as set out above. But the Tribunal will request that the Bond Centre now release the bond as ordered on page 1 of this decision.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case both parties have applied for name suppression.
I consider that the tenants have been substantially successful in their claim for bond refund, and in defending the landlords claim. I am minded that the tenants had agreed prior to the hearing to pay the cleaning, lawns and rubbish removal costs. Given the extent of the orders beyond those, certainly if viewed in money terms, the tenants have been substantially successful. Name suppression is ordered for the tenants only.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4632269 — net $902.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Painting garage damage	$300.00	Painting garage damage
Door repair	$100.00	Door repair
Lawns and rubbish removal	$203.00	Lawns and rubbish removal
Cleaning	$299.00	Cleaning
Net award	$902.00
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$902.00

Claims and awards for application 4632269 — net $902.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Painting garage damage

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Painting garage damage

Door repair

Amount: $100.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Door repair

Lawns and rubbish removal

Amount: $203.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and rubbish removal

Cleaning

Amount: $299.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Net award

Landlord $902.00

Bond

Landlord $2,880.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $902.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Property damage Rubbish Removal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Tbt Property Management Limited $902.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Tbt Property Management Limited: $902.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,978.00

Reasons

DescriptionLandlordTenant Painting garage damage$300.00 Door repair$100.00 Lawns and rubbish removal$203.00 Cleaning$299.00 Total award$902.00 Bond$902.00$1,978.00

The Tribunal must consider applications filed by the tenants and landlord. The landlord seeks compensation for a range of claims at the end of the tenancy, whereas the tenants seek a return of the bond.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Both parties appeared at the hearing.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 25 January 2022, and was a fixed term tenancy until 25 January 2023, but the tenancy ultimately ended on 4 June 2023. The premises were brand new at the start of the tenancy, these where the first tenants in the dwelling.
At the end of the tenancy there are disputes as to the liability of the tenants with various matters. The dispute could not be resolved at mediation, so now proceeds to be determined in the Tribunal. I convened a hearing today in Manukau to hear from the parties.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
As I will consider shortly, the landlord has presented a number of compensation claims for damage to the premises. With any claim for compensation, to receive an order the party (the landlord) must incur a loss. In short the compensation is intended as best money can do, to compensate for the actual loss incurred.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must firstly prove the damage 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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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.
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 the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

LANDLORD CLAIMS

Paint damage

The landlord has claimed $2,875.00 for painting work inside the tenancy at the end of the tenancy, but as noted by the Tribunal, presented a quotation for that work of $1,500.00.
The landlords state that at the end of the tenancy there were patches on the wall, and in the garage of wet paint. The landlord refers to the marked up photos showing the areas of dwelling which the landlord states the tenants had painted poorly.
The tenants dispute that they had painted the walls, they consider that the areas said to be ‘wet paint’ were in fact areas that they had cleaned with Jif. The tenants were clear that they did not paint the property. The tenants noted that they vacated the premises on the 4 June, but the landlords inspection was on 8 June, and if the paint was freshly painted, it would have dried by then.
The tenants agree that in the garage they caused a hole in the wall which they patched with plastered (but did not sand or paint), but they dispute the remainder of the claim.
The landlord disputes that there was cleaning to account for the marks on the walls, the landlord maintains this was wet paint. The landlords state the exit inspection was undertaken on 5 June, and an email was sent to the tenants on 6 June including with the photographs taken at the inspection.
The tenants referred to an email with the landlord on 7 June, but the landlord then showed the Tribunal and tenants an email from 6 June, which only mentioned the rubbish.
The landlord considers that the painting patches on the wall were done in an unprofessional way. Analysis
The primary area of dispute, is whether the tenants in had damaged the walls by patch painting the walls. There was one area of agreed damage in the garage, and I will address that separately.
The landlords primary claim is that the tenants have damaged and repainted patches over multiple walls inside the tenancy. The landlords position is that the work was shoddy, and the colour of the paint was different. The tenants dispute painting any walls, they say the marks on the walls were not paint, but the residue of wiping the walls with Jif.
Having considered the photographs, and hearing from the parties, I am very confident in accepting the evidence and position advanced by the tenants.
Firstly I found the tenants to be reliable witnesses. The tenants have accepted some claims without any argument (ie the cleaning, lawns and rubbish removal), and their explanation as to how the marks on the wall occurred is credible.
Secondly, having considered the photographs, I agree with the tenants that the photographs would be consistent with the residue left from wiping the walls and doors with an abrasive cream cleaner, such as Jif. I am aware that Jif has a very fine material in the cleaner that does leave a residue when the liquid evaporates and the product dries. Looking that the photographs, they have the appearance of wipe marks, or more particular the dried residue left after the walls were wiped.
Thirdly the photograph provided by the landlord of a substance on fingers looks more like a dry cleaning residue than paint. Further there is merit to the position of the tenants, that even if the landlords inspection was the day after the walls had been repainted, the paint would have dried by then. But if what the landlord wiped onto their fingers was the abrasive residue of the cleaner, that would remain on the walls for a long period.
In short the landlord has not established that the tenants had in fact caused any damage to the walls in the first instance, so the painting claim, with the exception of the garage, must be dismissed.
As it relates to the wall damage in the garage, the tenants agree that they caused that damage. The damage has been plastered, but otherwise not finished. That damage has occurred during the tenancy, and is more than fair wear and tear. The onus is then on the tenants to show it was not careless or intentional damage, and they have not done so. It is reasonable that the tenants provide some contribution to the painting costs for that repair. The invoice has not been allocated for specific damage as such, so I cannot determine the amount to order on the basis of the invoice. The best I can do is to step back and consider what a fair amount to order would be, and having done so, consider a fair order to prepare and paint the garage wall hole would be $300.00 given the size of the damage, and extent of remediation work needed. Door lock repair
The landlord states that when they went to the tenancy, the door was not locking. The landlord states that when batteries where installed, they found that the door was not locking. The landlord states the tradesman said the lock or door had been bent. The landlord considers the tenants must have hit the door or bent it somehow.
The tenants state that they had no issues with the door locking during the tenancy, and they therefore dispute damaging the door.
The landlord considers that the fact the batteries had been removed from the door lock, and the fact the door was not locked at the time of the exit inspection, is evidence the lock would not work. Analysis
The landlord’s position is that the tenants had damaged the door lock during the tenancy. The tenants dispute that is the case.
The best evidence I have, is the invoice from the tradesman who repaired the door. He has recorded on the invoice: Repair / align front door (frame damage)
I accept the evidence of the landlord, that they found the door would not lock properly. That would be consistent with the invoice from the tradesman, because if there was no problem with the door, then presumably he would not have recorded needing to repair or align the door, or that it was damaged.
I have set out the legal considerations above, but it is firstly for the landlord to establish that the tenancy was damaged during the tenancy, which I find the landlord has established. The landlord then needs to prove the damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the landlord has proven that too. The invoice records there to be “frame damage”. It is unlikely that a door frame would get “damaged” from fair wear and tear of the door.
The onus then shifts to the tenants to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, and I find they have not established that.
The invoiced amount for the repair was $100.00, and that is ordered in full. Door lock battery
The landlord seeks costs of $7.90 for the replacement of a battery in the door lock. The landlord said the battery was missing from the door.
The tenants say that the battery was replaced during the tenancy when needed, and they oppose this claim, they dispute it was missing. Analysis
I find the tenants are not liable for replacing the battery lock for legal reasons.
Section 46 of the RTA applies, that provision confirms: (1) The landlord shall provide and maintain such locks and other similar devices as are necessary to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure.
Plainly the obligation to provide working locks sits with the landlord. If the landlord provides a lock which requires a battery to operate, then it will be for the landlord to replace the battery when needed, to put that another way, to maintain the lock to ensure the premises are reasonably secure.
The situation is analogous to a mechanical lock. If for example a standard door lock required replacement during a tenancy from being worn out, then the landlord would be required to replace the lock. I cannot see why a battery becoming ‘worn out’ would be materially different.
This claim is dismissed. Lawn work and rubbish removal
The tenants consent to this order being made to the sum of $203.00. Cleaning
The tenants consent to this order being made to the sum of $299.00. Minor changes
The landlords final claim was filed on the basis of a ‘Section 42B’ claim. The landlord seeks an order of $1,500.00.
The landlords state that the tenants laid artificial grass mats on the tenancy without the landlords consent damaging the existing grass. The landlord states that the landscaper charged $1,500 in order to remediate the grass. The landlord also states that there was painting work involved with this claim. When I asked the landlord to provide a copy of the invoice for this work, the landlord could not do so.
The tenants state that this work was part of the lawn work that they had already agreed to pay. The tenants said that when they moved in there was no grass, only dirt, so they placed the grass mats, but accept that they did forget to remove the mat on the side of the house. Analysis
Section 42B is a provision which permits tenants to make minor changes to the tenancy with the consent of the landlord. Subsection 4 requires that the tenants must at the end of the tenancy: ...return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor change was made.
In this case the landlords position is that the tenants placed artificial grass outside the house, and at the end of the tenancy the tenants did not remove it. The landlord states that grass seed had been placed on these areas, and because of the artificial grass being placed on top of the seed, it did not grow, and that the lawn person needed to resew the lawn seed.
The landlord states that costs of $1,500 were incurred for this work, but provided no evidence of that. In my view that sort of cost for sewing a small area of lawn is very unlikely.
Despite the fact that the landlord has not established any loss here, I find that the tenants have not breached their obligation under section 42B(4). The tenants provided photographs of the outside of the tenancy when they moved in, and it was dirt only – there was no grass. Whether seed had been planted I cannot be sure, but certainly there was no grass. So when I consider the legal test, did the tenants return the tenancy in “substantially the same condition” as they received it, the answer is ‘yes’. The tenants rented a tenancy with no grass outside the premises, and once the artificial grass was removed, there would have only been dirt under that product, so the premises were in largely the same way as they received it.
The landlord has not established any other minor works the tenants did that they would be liable for.
This claim is dismissed.

TENANTS CLAIM

The tenants claim is simply in relation to a release of the bond. The bond release of course depends on the degree of success each party had in the claim from the landlord as set out above. But the Tribunal will request that the Bond Centre now release the bond as ordered on page 1 of this decision.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case both parties have applied for name suppression.
I consider that the tenants have been substantially successful in their claim for bond refund, and in defending the landlords claim. I am minded that the tenants had agreed prior to the hearing to pay the cleaning, lawns and rubbish removal costs. Given the extent of the orders beyond those, certainly if viewed in money terms, the tenants have been substantially successful. Name suppression is ordered for the tenants only.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4632269 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4632269 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORD CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIM

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LANDLORD CLAIMS

TENANTS CLAIM

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions