How much money was awarded in case 4643250?

Rent Overpaid: $97.86 awarded to tenant; Vanity: $431.25 awarded to landlord; Walls/Paint: $220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4643250?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4643250?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9669042-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4643250?

Rent Overpaid: $97.86 awarded to tenant; Vanity: $431.25 awarded to landlord; Walls/Paint: $220.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4643250?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4643250?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9669042-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4D, 28 Stanwell Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4643250 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4643250?

The tribunal order states: Harry Papadopoulos and Haideh Mokhtarihizaji to pay Barfoot And Thompson

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4643250 — net $553.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Vanity	$431.25		Repairs: Vanity
Repairs: walls/paint	$220.00		Repairs: walls/paint
Rent overpaid		$97.86	Rent overpaid
Total award	$651.25	$97.86
Net award	$553.39
Bond	$2,740.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$553.39

Harry Papadopoulos and Haideh Mokhtarihizaji to pay Barfoot And Thompson Limited As Agent For Shaun And Nicolette Redgrave $553.39 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,740.00 (5969104-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot And Thompson Limited As Agent For Shaun And Nicolette Redgrave: $553.39 Harry Papadopoulos and Haideh Mokhtarihizaji: $2,186.61

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.

The tenant seeks reimbursement of the bond.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 May 2023. The landlord and tenant agree there is a rent credit on the tenant’s account at the end of the tenancy and that this should be accounted for.

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.

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.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.

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 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the gib and paint. b. Cracking to the vanity.

The landlord’s position is that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that touch ups are required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state.

The tenant’s position is that, considering the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy, any damage to the paint is fair wear and tear. The tenant’s evidence is that he filled any holes, and the surfaces were ready for touch up painting. Further, the tenant says that there had previously been paint touch up that did not perfectly match the original paint colours. The tenant considers that the landlord should not be allowed to redecorate at his cost.

Having heard the evidence and seen the respective photographs, I am satisfied that damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I reach this view primarily when considering the lounge wall, between the tall windows where there is a significant patch of either mismatched paint, or filler. This was not visible in either set of pre-tenancy photographs but is visible in both sets of post tenancy photographs. I also note the damage to the paint beside the power point, and the small areas where holes have been filled by the tenant, but not painted.

I agree with the tenant that the paint was not perfect at the commencement of the tenancy, however I do not consider that the amount sought by the landlord represents a cost for redecorating.

The amounts ordered are proved.

In relation to the vanity, the apportionment of the costs of this have been agreed between the parties and the amount ordered is by consent.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4643250 — net $553.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Vanity	$431.25		Repairs: Vanity
Repairs: walls/paint	$220.00		Repairs: walls/paint
Rent overpaid		$97.86	Rent overpaid
Total award	$651.25	$97.86
Net award	$553.39
Bond	$2,740.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$553.39

Order

Harry Papadopoulos and Haideh Mokhtarihizaji to pay Barfoot And Thompson Limited As Agent For Shaun And Nicolette Redgrave $553.39 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,740.00 (5969104-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot And Thompson Limited As Agent For Shaun And Nicolette Redgrave: $553.39 Harry Papadopoulos and Haideh Mokhtarihizaji: $2,186.61

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.
The tenant seeks reimbursement of the bond.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 22 May 2023. The landlord and tenant agree there is a rent credit on the tenant’s account at the end of the tenancy and that this should be accounted for.

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.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
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 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the gib and paint. b. Cracking to the vanity.
The landlord’s position is that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that touch ups are required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The tenant’s position is that, considering the condition of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy, any damage to the paint is fair wear and tear. The tenant’s evidence is that he filled any holes, and the surfaces were ready for touch up painting. Further, the tenant says that there had previously been paint touch up that did not perfectly match the original paint colours. The tenant considers that the landlord should not be allowed to redecorate at his cost.
Having heard the evidence and seen the respective photographs, I am satisfied that damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I reach this view primarily when considering the lounge wall, between the tall windows where there is a significant patch of either mismatched paint, or filler. This was not visible in either set of pre-tenancy photographs but is visible in both sets of post tenancy photographs. I also note the damage to the paint beside the power point, and the small areas where holes have been filled by the tenant, but not painted.
I agree with the tenant that the paint was not perfect at the commencement of the tenancy, however I do not consider that the amount sought by the landlord represents a cost for redecorating.
The amounts ordered are proved.
In relation to the vanity, the apportionment of the costs of this have been agreed between the parties and the amount ordered is by consent.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4643250 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4D, 28 Stanwell Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4643250 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4D, 28 Stanwell Street, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions