What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4633989 about?

The tribunal order states: Sonia Yang Yang Gill to pay [The landlord/s] $2,220.44 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4633989?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Painting Walls: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4633989?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4633989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9587895-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4633989 about?

The tribunal order states: Sonia Yang Yang Gill to pay [The landlord/s] $2,220.44 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4633989?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Painting Walls: $2,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4633989?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4633989?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9587895-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4633989 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4633989 — net $2,220.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Painting walls	$2,200.00	Repairs: Painting walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,220.44
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,220.44

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenant did not attend.

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

The name of the landlord changed during the tenancy to that shown above. The tenant was advised of the name change during the tenancy.

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice as the landlord was selling the property. The tenant found a new tenancy before the end of the 90 day notice and gave the landlord 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy.

The tenant caused damage to 11 walls in a number of rooms in the property during the tenancy. The tenant had the damage repaired and painted the affected areas of the walls, rather than each damaged wall being painted from corner to corner. The photographs provided by the landlord show the painted patches are not an exact colour match to the walls and are obvious.

The District Court has found that touching up cupboards with paint that did not match the primary colour of the cupboards is intentional damage 1 . Likewise I find that painting only the repaired areas of the walls with paint that is not an exact colour match, as has occurred here, is intentional damage.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. 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 landlord agreed with the purchasers of the property that the purchase price would be reduced by $3,000.00 in compensation for the 11 walls being spot painted with paint that was not an exact colour match. The landlord is seeking $3,000.00 in compensation. 1 HomeLet Property Management Ltd v Santara Grindley-Alovili [2019]NZDC 4700.

Where any party to a tenancy breaches any provision of the tenancy agreement or the RTA the other party is expected to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss that results from the breach (see section 49, RTA).

I find the landlord could have arranged for the affected walls to be painted from corner to corner for a lesser sum. The landlord had sufficient time after the tenant vacated the property to arrange for the work to be done prior to the settlement date for the sale of the property. I find from the property manager’s evidence that the reasonable range for having walls painted from corner to corner is $150 - $250.00. Here the affected walls varied in size and I find it appropriate to calculate the cost of remedy by painting the walls as the average of this range, being $200.00 a wall. Accordingly $2,200.00 is awarded.

Filing fee: As [The applicant/s] has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Suppression: Name suppression is available to the successful party, which in this case is the landlord. The landlord has requested name suppression therefore a suppression order is made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4633989 — net $2,220.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Painting walls	$2,200.00	Repairs: Painting walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,220.44
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,220.44

Order

Sonia Yang Yang Gill to pay [The landlord/s] $2,220.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,220.44 Sonia Yang Yang Gill: $99.56

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The name of the landlord changed during the tenancy to that shown above. The tenant was advised of the name change during the tenancy.

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice as the landlord was selling the property. The tenant found a new tenancy before the end of the 90 day notice and gave the landlord 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy.
The tenant caused damage to 11 walls in a number of rooms in the property during the tenancy. The tenant had the damage repaired and painted the affected areas of the walls, rather than each damaged wall being painted from corner to corner. The photographs provided by the landlord show the painted patches are not an exact colour match to the walls and are obvious.
The District Court has found that touching up cupboards with paint that did not match the primary colour of the cupboards is intentional damage 1 . Likewise I find that painting only the repaired areas of the walls with paint that is not an exact colour match, as has occurred here, is intentional damage.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. 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 landlord agreed with the purchasers of the property that the purchase price would be reduced by $3,000.00 in compensation for the 11 walls being spot painted with paint that was not an exact colour match. The landlord is seeking $3,000.00 in compensation. 1 HomeLet Property Management Ltd v Santara Grindley-Alovili [2019]NZDC 4700.
Where any party to a tenancy breaches any provision of the tenancy agreement or the RTA the other party is expected to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss that results from the breach (see section 49, RTA).
I find the landlord could have arranged for the affected walls to be painted from corner to corner for a lesser sum. The landlord had sufficient time after the tenant vacated the property to arrange for the work to be done prior to the settlement date for the sale of the property. I find from the property manager’s evidence that the reasonable range for having walls painted from corner to corner is $150 - $250.00. Here the affected walls varied in size and I find it appropriate to calculate the cost of remedy by painting the walls as the average of this range, being $200.00 a wall. Accordingly $2,200.00 is awarded.
Filing fee: As [The applicant/s] has succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Suppression: Name suppression is available to the successful party, which in this case is the landlord. The landlord has requested name suppression therefore a suppression order is made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4633989 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4633989 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions