What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4643134?

The tribunal order states: Kane Michael Harris Clark to pay Xiu Mei Huang $1,400.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4643134?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rehang Door: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Repaint Walls: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord; TV Bracket Removal And Remediation: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4643134?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4643134?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9638111-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4643134?

The tribunal order states: Kane Michael Harris Clark to pay Xiu Mei Huang $1,400.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4643134?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rehang Door: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Repaint Walls: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord; TV Bracket Removal And Remediation: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4643134?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4643134?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9638111-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 1150 New North Road, Mount Albert, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4643134 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4643134 — net $1,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$500.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Damage to eaves	$100.00	Damage to eaves
Damage to floor	$100.00	Damage to floor
Damage to cupboard	$50.00	Damage to cupboard
Rehang door	$50.00	Rehang door
Repaint walls	$500.00	Repaint walls
Power point replacement	$50.00	Power point replacement
TV Bracket removal and remediation	$50.00	TV Bracket removal and remediation
Net award	$1,400.00
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,400.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4643134 — net $1,400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning and rubbish removal	$500.00	Cleaning and rubbish removal
Damage to eaves	$100.00	Damage to eaves
Damage to floor	$100.00	Damage to floor
Damage to cupboard	$50.00	Damage to cupboard
Rehang door	$50.00	Rehang door
Repaint walls	$500.00	Repaint walls
Power point replacement	$50.00	Power point replacement
TV Bracket removal and remediation	$50.00	TV Bracket removal and remediation
Net award	$1,400.00
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,400.00

Order

Kane Michael Harris Clark to pay Xiu Mei Huang $1,400.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (5716197-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Xiu Mei Huang: $1,400.00 Kane Micheal Harris Clark: $920.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by both parties, and the relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Both parties appeared at the hearing.
The only claim for the tenant relates to a claim for his bond back, whereas the landlord has filed a range of claims for compensation as will be set out below.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 14 January 2022 and was a fixed term tenancy to 14 January 2023.
The tenancy agreement records the landlord as Xiu Mei Huang, and the tenant as “Kane, Mackenzie”. The reference to ‘Kane’ is Mr Clark. ‘Mackenzie’ was Mr Clark’s partner at the time. I understand that Mackenzie moved out of the tenancy in or around August 2022.
The landlord was present at the hearing, but represented by her son Mr Yin. I note that an interpreter was present at the hearing to interpret the proceeding for the benefit of Ms Huang. Mr Batten-Smith’s evidence
Mr Batten-Smith attended the hearing to give evidence for the tenant, being a friend of Mr Clark. The witness advised that when he first attended the house he found that Mr Clark was painting it which the witness believed was with the permission from the landlord.
The witness advised that the Mr Clark would undertake considerable work to keep on top of mould in the premises.
The witness advised there were a range of defects with the premises, including that the electrical outlets were unreliable, there was a hole in the floor, no door knob on the back door, sliding door was difficult to open, toilet door did not have a proper lock
At the end of the tenancy the witness advised there were a number of items which had been damaged with mould.
The witness cannot recall any damage to the floor or stove, but can recall some skirting being painted blue during the tenancy, but it could have been masking tape. The witness does not know who broke the cabinet door.
Under cross examination the witness advised that the mould problem started soon after Mr Clark moved in and there were health problems. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS
The landlord has filed claims in relation to cleaning and rubbish removal, as well as compensation for damage. Application for cleaning and rubbish removal
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
It is important to note that the RTA does not require the premises to be provided / returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also take into account factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises. For example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work. Carpet cleaning, general cleaning and rubbish removal
The landlord states that the tenant had a dog, and had agreed to carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states that other cleaning and rubbish removal was required. The landlord said that he had offered to undertake any cleaning for $500.00. The landlord produced a range of photographs at the end of the tenancy, including photographs showing rubbish bags
In response the tenant says that he had vacuumed the carpet, and believes that it was clean. The tenant agrees there was a dog in the tenancy, but states that it did not smell, but nevertheless used a product to remove any dog smell. The tenant stated that the only thing he left at the premises was a television wall mount and the refrigerator. Analysis
I find this claim is established.
As the tenant noted at the hearing, the premises only need to be returned reasonably clean and tidy. I am not however persuaded that the tenant has returned the premises in that state.
In relation to the carpet cleaning, the evidence is that the tenant had a dog in the premises. The landlord states that the premises smelt like dog when the premises were returned, and on balance I consider that to be more likely than not. I note that the tenant states that he had applied a product to remove dog odour, and if there was no potential for odour it is not clear to me why he would have applied that product. If there was a dog in the premises, it is not at all unlikely that there would be an odour, that would require carpet cleaning to address.
In relation to the other general cleaning and rubbish removal, on the basis of the photographs the landlord has provided after the premises were returned, I again consider it more likely than not that this work was required to return the premises to being reasonably clean and tidy.
The invoice from the carpet cleaner was for $230.00, however the landlord seeks an order for $500.00 for all of this work. On balance that claim seems reasonable and is ordered in full. Application for compensation
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 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.
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. 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 the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I will now address the landlords claims: Eaves damage
The landlord states that the tenants truck hit the eaves of the house, and the landlord is claiming $100.00 toward the repair of the eaves.
The tenant states that it was the co-tenant who damaged the eaves, but otherwise the tenant has not disputed that this was tenant damage. Analysis
There is no dispute that this is a case of tenant damage. The damage falls into the likely careless damage category, and is ordered in full. Kitchen floor damage
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the floor of the kitchen. The landlord has provided a photograph which shows a tear on the floor of the kitchen. The landlord seeks $1,000 based an estimate for a replacement of the flooring, obtained from the internet.
The tenant states that the photographs provided by the landlord said to be before the tenancy started, was not the state of the premises when he took it over.
Mr Yin advised that the photographs were taken from the prior tenant so that he could advertise the tenancy on Trademe. Analysis
The landlord has produced a photograph showing a tear in what I accept is the kitchen flooring.
The first question to be determined is whether this damage is likely to have occurred during the tenancy, and I find on balance it likely was, for three particular reasons.
Firstly I have no reason not to accept the landlords statement that this damage occurred during the tenancy.
Secondly I accept the photographs said to be prior to the tenancy, were taken by the prior outgoing tenants not long before they left the tenancy. That is the best pre-tenancy evidence I have available.
Thirdly there is no record on the tenancy agreement of there being any damage to the kitchen floor, noting there was a property inspection report on that document which would have allow the parties (particularly the tenant) to record any damage present in the tenancy at the start of the tenancy.
Finding as I do that the damage is likely to have occurred during the tenancy, then it falls to the tenant to establish that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, and I find he has not done so.
However, I am not persuaded that the landlord has established the level of damage as claimed, at $1,000. The amount claimed is based on an estimate provided from an online calculator, but it has not been established whether the landlord could have had the floor repaired, which seems the more practicable approach given the damage. It is fair that a measure of compensation has provided to the landlord, but in the absence of better evidence supporting that the tear could not be repaired, I consider an order of $100.00 toward a repair of the floor would be reasonable. Kitchen cabinet door
The landlord states that a hinge was broken on a cabinet on the kitchen door. The landlord is claiming $50.00.
The tenant confirmed that it was his co-tenants boyfriend who broke the hinge. Analysis
The tenant has not disputed that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and I note the RTA confirms that tenants are responsible for damage caused by other people on the premises with their consent. The tenant has not proven the damages anything other than careless or intentional damage, meeting the tenant is liable for this amount. The amount claimed for the repair seems reasonable, so is ordered in full. Stove damage
The landlord states that the incoming tenant found that the stove was not working, and it was accordingly replaced. However the landlord does not know what was wrong with the stove otherwise.
In response the tenant states that the stove was working at the end of the tenancy. Analysis
I find the landlord has not established this claim. Landlords are responsible for maintenance of the premises, and items like stoves and other electrical goods, will at some point in their life cycle require replacement, or significant repair. There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to establish that the stove was not simply at the stage where it requires replacement. That being the case, there is no basis for the Tribunal to order the tenant to pay for the stove replacement. Wardrobe door damage
The landlord states that the wardrobe door was ripped off. The landlord claims $50.00 for the replacement of a hinge and screws.
The tenant states that the wardrobe was removed to make more space, but he agrees that he did not reattached the door, it just needed to be reattached. Analysis
At the end of the tenancy the tenant needed to return the premises materially how it was received, therefore if the tenant had removed a wardrobe door, then that needed to be replaced. If the tenant fails to do so, then he will be responsible for the cost involved with reinstatement, as is the case here. The amount came seems reasonable, and is ordered in full Repainting walls
The landlord states that the tenant painted some of the walls in the kitchen blue, and the landlord needed to repaint it a white colour when the premises were returned.
The tenant states that it was only one hinge painted blue, the co-tenant started the work, and did not finish it.
Mr Yin disputed that it was only a hinge painted blue with reference to the photographs provided. The landlord claims $500.00. Analysis
Taking into consideration the photographs provided by the landlord, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that various walls in the premises were painted blue. The landlord states that the photographs provided were taken after he had painted the walls white, there is in my view an appearance of blue paint behind the painted white surface. I accept what the landlord states, that the walls have been painted blue.
Again the tenant must return the premises materially how it was received. If a tenant undertakes work such as painting walls, they run the risk that they will be responsible for the remediation cost, and such is the case here. The landlord has claimed $500 for the re-painting work, which I accept is a reasonable claim, and is ordered in full. Power socket broken
The landlord states that one of the power points was broken, and he provided a photograph showing a broken power point. The landlord states this was located in the living room next to the television.
The tenant says that the power point did not produce power, but he otherwise disagrees that it was broken. Analysis
Based on the photographs provided, I’m satisfied that the power point was broken, the front face of the power point is missing a large portion. This is not simply a case of a faulty power point. I accept that on balance the power point damage occurred during the tenancy.
The tenant has not proven that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally, meaning the tenant must be responsible for the damage.
I am not persuaded that the socket was not working, and I note that in the photograph provided by the landlord, there is an item plugged into the socket, suggesting that the socket was operational. The landlord has claimed $50 for the repair, which I considered fair, and is ordered full. Screw holes in wall
The landlord has claimed $50.00 to remove the television bracket and to repair the holes that were left.
The tenant agrees to this claim which is ordered in full. Storage of fridge
The landlord states that the tenant left a fridge for a month in the carport.
The tenant agrees that the fridge was left at the premises. The tenant said that he had sold the fridge and had an arrangement for the fridge to be collected, but it was not. Analysis
The RTA requires that the tenant remove all goods at the end of the tenancy. That did not occur, and there was a breach of the tenants obligations to that extent. However I decline to award compensation, because I am not persuaded that the landlord has incurred a loss as it relates to the fridge on the premises. TENANT’S CLAIM
At the hearing the only claim from the tenant was for the release of the bond. The bond will be released based on the level of success the landlord has had above.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when the party has been wholly or substantially successful in their claim. That is not the situation for either party, so name suppression has declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4643134 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 1150 New North Road, Mount Albert, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4643134 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 1150 New North Road, Mount Albert, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions