What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4656296 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,077.26 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4656296?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $279.82 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656296?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656296?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9619752-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4656296 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,077.26 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4656296?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $279.82 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Repainting: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4656296?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4656296?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9619752-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

206 Park Road North, Parkvale, Hastings 4122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4656296 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4656296 — net $1,077.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Dishwasher repair	$279.82	Dishwasher repair
Repainting	$250.00	Repainting
Carpet repair	$150.00	Carpet repair
Lawn repair	$350.00	Lawn repair
Key replacement	$27.00	Key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,077.26
Bond	$1,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,077.26

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,077.26 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,077.26 [The tenant/s]: $882.74

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for refund of her bond following the end of the tenancy. The landlord then brought a cross application seeking payment of the bond to her and compensation for damage to the premises.
The landlord’s claims are as follows: Compensation for breach – pets $200.00 Compensation for breach – occupants $100.00 Carpet repairs $150.00 Dishwasher repair $279.82 Replacement of bathroom fittings $192.34 Lawn repair $425.00 Key replacement $27.00 Painting work $950.00

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.
There is no suggestion that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy but the landlord says the only keys returned were the front door keys and garage door remotes. She claims the cost for replacing a gate key, letterbox key and garage door key.
The tenant says those keys were never supplied. The landlord says they were.
An addendum to the tenancy agreement is titled “206 Park Road North – list of Keys and Remote Controls” That list includes 2 x garage keys, 1 x letterbox key and 1 x gate key, in addition to the front door keys and garage remotes.
I must be persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant breached her obligation to return keys at the end of the tenancy that she was provided with.
In assessing disputed facts, I must consider the obligation on the landlord to prove her claim on balance (more likely than not) and have regard to the best evidence available.
Here, the best available evidence is the list of keys recorded in the parties’ agreement as having been provided. That list includes keys that the tenant acknowledges she did not return. Accordingly, while I note the tenant’s evidence that she signed the agreement on the basis that those keys were to be delivered later, it does constitute an acknowledgement of receipt and I find it proved on balance that the tenant has breached her obligation to provide those keys at the end of the tenancy. She should accordingly compensate the landlord for the cost of having replacements cut. The cost is proved by the receipt provided by the landlord. Breach claims
The landlord seeks compensation for breaches of the agreement by the tenant in having pets (a rabbit) at the premises which caused damage and by having additional people living at the premises.
The tenant accepts that for some time she had a rabbit at the premises for her daughter and accepts responsibility for the cost of any damage caused by it.
The direct losses caused to the landlord by the breach are addressed by the compensation ordered below. No additional loss is proved by the landlord to the degree necessary to support a further compensation award.
As regard the premises’ occupants, the tenant’s evidence is that she provided emergency accommodation for a couple for a few weeks during covid, did the same for a couple impacted by cyclone Gabrielle earlier in 2023 and had a friend staying occasionally for periods of up to a few weeks. The landlord says she believes the tenant sublet a bedroom and had people staying in the garage. She is unable to produce evidence to support those suspicions.
I do not find it proved that the tenant was in beach of the agreement in that regard or that a loss was caused entitling the landlord to compensation.

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.
There is no suggestion that any of the claimed damage was intentional. Carpet
As noted, the tenant accepts responsibility for the cost of repairing carpet damage caused by the pet rabbit. That cost is proved by an invoice paid for and provided by the landlord. Dishwasher
Not long before the end of the tenancy, the tenant notified the landlord that the dishwasher was not draining.
After the end of the tenancy the landlord had it inspected, and the repair invoice notes “Found 2 problems – Drain pump cover missing and pull can tab in the drain pipe.”
That evidence persuades me that the need for repair of the dishwasher arose from the tenant’s use of it, not an underlying problem with the dishwasher itself.
That being so the landlord is entitled to compensation for the repair cost as proved by the repair invoice. Bathroom fittings
The landlord has provided photographs showing what appears to be rust damage to bathroom fittings and a bathroom heater. The landlord says the premises are quite new with opening windows and an extractor so the damage could only arise from misuse of the bathroom by the tenant. She claims replacement costs.
The tenant’s evidence is that the bathroom was not used in any unusual way – for instance as a place for drying clothes. She says it was well aired and that the mould that nevertheless developed was cleaned by her cleaner through the tenancy.
I have no direct evidence as to the cause of the decay to the bathroom fittings. I am reluctant to infer a cause without some more direct evidence – which might have come from regular inspections of the premises.
The onus is on the landlord to provide evidence to prove a breach by the tenant and as regards this claim I do not find the claim proved. Lawns
The landlord claims compensation for reinstatement of the lawn underneath where a pool had been placed.
Early in the tenancy the tenant obtained the landlord’s permission to put up a padding pool for her daughter. She says the pool was taken down each winter and moved the next summer so the lawn underneath could recover – which she says it did.
It is clear however that the size of the pool increased over time and the tenant acknowledges that this year the pool was not removed until August 2023, not long before the tenancy ended, having remained in place through the Winter.
The tenant did make a conscientious effort to reinstate the area, getting advice from [home improvement supplier], buying bedding material and grass seed, levelling and resowing the area.
Photographs taken at the final inspection show the area as large and bare. The gardener engaged by the landlord said that the repair was unsuitable, with mulch having been laid (which the tenant denies) into which the grass seed would not take root. The landlord had the area redone.
I am persuaded on balance that although the tenant had taken the responsible step of trying to remediate the area, she had not achieved satisfactory reinstatement of the lawn by the end of the tenancy. The landlord was justified in having the lawn repair professionally done and she should be compensated for the cost. I have awarded a lesser amount than the gardener’s invoice as his work included spraying of the whole lawn for broadleaf, which is not the tenant’s responsibility. Painting
The landlord claims compensation for the cost of mould treatment and painting of the bathroom, painting of the lounge ceiling and one wall.
I have not found it proved that the tenant’s was improper or careless in her use of the bathroom to have caused the growth of mould and damage to the bathroom fittings. It follows that she should not be responsible for the mould treatment and repainting costs.
The damage to the lounge ceiling was caused by a child’s piñata stick. The damage to the lounge was from removing a hook which the tenant had put there.
The tenant is responsible for the cost of repairing that damage, which is beyond fair wear and tear. In each case the affected area is very small whereas the quote provided by the landlord, for work yet to be done, is for repainting of the whole ceiling and the whole of the one lounge wall. Those costs seem to me disproportionate to the damage caused by the tenant and the compensation awarded is reduced accordingly. The landlord will have the opportunity to reconsider the scope of the work before having it done.
Because the landlord has had success with claims against the bond she is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4656296 — net $1,077.26 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Dishwasher repair	$279.82	Dishwasher repair
Repainting	$250.00	Repainting
Carpet repair	$150.00	Carpet repair
Lawn repair	$350.00	Lawn repair
Key replacement	$27.00	Key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,077.26
Bond	$1,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,077.26

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,077.26 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,077.26 [The tenant/s]: $882.74

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for refund of her bond following the end of the tenancy. The landlord then brought a cross application seeking payment of the bond to her and compensation for damage to the premises.
The landlord’s claims are as follows: Compensation for breach – pets $200.00 Compensation for breach – occupants $100.00 Carpet repairs $150.00 Dishwasher repair $279.82 Replacement of bathroom fittings $192.34 Lawn repair $425.00 Key replacement $27.00 Painting work $950.00

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.
There is no suggestion that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy but the landlord says the only keys returned were the front door keys and garage door remotes. She claims the cost for replacing a gate key, letterbox key and garage door key.
The tenant says those keys were never supplied. The landlord says they were.
An addendum to the tenancy agreement is titled “206 Park Road North – list of Keys and Remote Controls” That list includes 2 x garage keys, 1 x letterbox key and 1 x gate key, in addition to the front door keys and garage remotes.
I must be persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenant breached her obligation to return keys at the end of the tenancy that she was provided with.
In assessing disputed facts, I must consider the obligation on the landlord to prove her claim on balance (more likely than not) and have regard to the best evidence available.
Here, the best available evidence is the list of keys recorded in the parties’ agreement as having been provided. That list includes keys that the tenant acknowledges she did not return. Accordingly, while I note the tenant’s evidence that she signed the agreement on the basis that those keys were to be delivered later, it does constitute an acknowledgement of receipt and I find it proved on balance that the tenant has breached her obligation to provide those keys at the end of the tenancy. She should accordingly compensate the landlord for the cost of having replacements cut. The cost is proved by the receipt provided by the landlord. Breach claims
The landlord seeks compensation for breaches of the agreement by the tenant in having pets (a rabbit) at the premises which caused damage and by having additional people living at the premises.
The tenant accepts that for some time she had a rabbit at the premises for her daughter and accepts responsibility for the cost of any damage caused by it.
The direct losses caused to the landlord by the breach are addressed by the compensation ordered below. No additional loss is proved by the landlord to the degree necessary to support a further compensation award.
As regard the premises’ occupants, the tenant’s evidence is that she provided emergency accommodation for a couple for a few weeks during covid, did the same for a couple impacted by cyclone Gabrielle earlier in 2023 and had a friend staying occasionally for periods of up to a few weeks. The landlord says she believes the tenant sublet a bedroom and had people staying in the garage. She is unable to produce evidence to support those suspicions.
I do not find it proved that the tenant was in beach of the agreement in that regard or that a loss was caused entitling the landlord to compensation.

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.
There is no suggestion that any of the claimed damage was intentional. Carpet
As noted, the tenant accepts responsibility for the cost of repairing carpet damage caused by the pet rabbit. That cost is proved by an invoice paid for and provided by the landlord. Dishwasher
Not long before the end of the tenancy, the tenant notified the landlord that the dishwasher was not draining.
After the end of the tenancy the landlord had it inspected, and the repair invoice notes “Found 2 problems – Drain pump cover missing and pull can tab in the drain pipe.”
That evidence persuades me that the need for repair of the dishwasher arose from the tenant’s use of it, not an underlying problem with the dishwasher itself.
That being so the landlord is entitled to compensation for the repair cost as proved by the repair invoice. Bathroom fittings
The landlord has provided photographs showing what appears to be rust damage to bathroom fittings and a bathroom heater. The landlord says the premises are quite new with opening windows and an extractor so the damage could only arise from misuse of the bathroom by the tenant. She claims replacement costs.
The tenant’s evidence is that the bathroom was not used in any unusual way – for instance as a place for drying clothes. She says it was well aired and that the mould that nevertheless developed was cleaned by her cleaner through the tenancy.
I have no direct evidence as to the cause of the decay to the bathroom fittings. I am reluctant to infer a cause without some more direct evidence – which might have come from regular inspections of the premises.
The onus is on the landlord to provide evidence to prove a breach by the tenant and as regards this claim I do not find the claim proved. Lawns
The landlord claims compensation for reinstatement of the lawn underneath where a pool had been placed.
Early in the tenancy the tenant obtained the landlord’s permission to put up a padding pool for her daughter. She says the pool was taken down each winter and moved the next summer so the lawn underneath could recover – which she says it did.
It is clear however that the size of the pool increased over time and the tenant acknowledges that this year the pool was not removed until August 2023, not long before the tenancy ended, having remained in place through the Winter.
The tenant did make a conscientious effort to reinstate the area, getting advice from [home improvement supplier], buying bedding material and grass seed, levelling and resowing the area.
Photographs taken at the final inspection show the area as large and bare. The gardener engaged by the landlord said that the repair was unsuitable, with mulch having been laid (which the tenant denies) into which the grass seed would not take root. The landlord had the area redone.
I am persuaded on balance that although the tenant had taken the responsible step of trying to remediate the area, she had not achieved satisfactory reinstatement of the lawn by the end of the tenancy. The landlord was justified in having the lawn repair professionally done and she should be compensated for the cost. I have awarded a lesser amount than the gardener’s invoice as his work included spraying of the whole lawn for broadleaf, which is not the tenant’s responsibility. Painting
The landlord claims compensation for the cost of mould treatment and painting of the bathroom, painting of the lounge ceiling and one wall.
I have not found it proved that the tenant’s was improper or careless in her use of the bathroom to have caused the growth of mould and damage to the bathroom fittings. It follows that she should not be responsible for the mould treatment and repainting costs.
The damage to the lounge ceiling was caused by a child’s piñata stick. The damage to the lounge was from removing a hook which the tenant had put there.
The tenant is responsible for the cost of repairing that damage, which is beyond fair wear and tear. In each case the affected area is very small whereas the quote provided by the landlord, for work yet to be done, is for repainting of the whole ceiling and the whole of the one lounge wall. Those costs seem to me disproportionate to the damage caused by the tenant and the compensation awarded is reduced accordingly. The landlord will have the opportunity to reconsider the scope of the work before having it done.
Because the landlord has had success with claims against the bond she is entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656296 — Property damage at 206 Park Road North, Parkvale, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4656296 — Property damage at 206 Park Road North, Parkvale, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Award balance

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

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

Frequently asked questions