How much money was awarded in case 4660735?

Cleaning: $475.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $97.65 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,147.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4660735?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4660735?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9503575-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4660735?

Cleaning: $475.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $97.65 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,147.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4660735?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4660735?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9503575-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Aermacchi Lane, Wigram, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4660735 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4660735?

The tribunal order states: Viliami Tuiono and Kaniteli Maasi Tuiono are to pay Braziers Limited as agent

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4660735 — net $1,850.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replacement yellow bin	$97.65	Replacement yellow bin
Repairs: painting	$1,147.70	Repairs: painting
Garden work: weeding, removal of non-organic items and dump costs	$109.25	Garden work: weeding, removal of non-organic items and dump costs
Cleaning	$475.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,850.04
Bond	$2,040.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,850.04

Viliami Tuiono and Kaniteli Maasi Tuiono are to pay Braziers Limited as agent for Satmeet Singh Aujla $1,850.04 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 (6255473-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Braziers Limited as agent for Satmeet Singh Aujla: $1,850.04 Viliami Tuiono and Kaniteli Maasi Tuiono: $189.96

Reasons

Mr Kewish and Ms Gonzales attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.

Mr Tuiono emailed the Tribunal shortly before the hearing to advise that he and his wife were not able to attend.

The landlord wished the hearing to proceed and, as there was no request for an adjournment and no evidence provided for the lack of attendance, the hearing was held in the tenants’ absence.

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

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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and did not leave all chattels.

The landlord provided photographic evidence and an invoice for cleaning from Green Acres for $475.00 to show that the property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.

The landlord provided photographic evidence and an invoice from T J’s Mowing for $109.25 to show that the gardens were not left tidy and free of rubbish as required by the Act and by paragraph 19 of the initial tenancy agreement.

The yellow Christchurch City Council recycle bin was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided correspondence from the council to prove that the bin had been confiscated due to persistent improper use by the tenant. The cost of replacement was confirmed by an invoice from the Council in the amount of $97.65.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

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) under section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage under section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.

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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.

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.

During the tenancy, the tenant had caused damage or marks to walls in the garage, lounge and one bedroom. The tenant had attempted to fix the damage by having the walls repaired and the paintwork touched up. Unfortunately, the paint colour did not match the initial wall colour and the landlord was required to have the garage and lounge plastered (where repairs had been attempted) and repainted completely. The bedroom required one wall to be repaired and repainted.

The landlord provided photographs showing the damage and an invoice from OJJ Christchurch Central Ltd for $1147.70 confirming the cost of the repair.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amount ordered are proved.

As Braziers Limited as agent for Satmeet Singh Aujla has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4660735 — net $1,850.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replacement yellow bin	$97.65	Replacement yellow bin
Repairs: painting	$1,147.70	Repairs: painting
Garden work: weeding, removal of non-organic items and dump costs	$109.25	Garden work: weeding, removal of non-organic items and dump costs
Cleaning	$475.00	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,850.04
Bond	$2,040.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,850.04

Order

Viliami Tuiono and Kaniteli Maasi Tuiono are to pay Braziers Limited as agent for Satmeet Singh Aujla $1,850.04 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 (6255473-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Braziers Limited as agent for Satmeet Singh Aujla: $1,850.04 Viliami Tuiono and Kaniteli Maasi Tuiono: $189.96

Reasons

Mr Kewish and Ms Gonzales attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
Mr Tuiono emailed the Tribunal shortly before the hearing to advise that he and his wife were not able to attend.
The landlord wished the hearing to proceed and, as there was no request for an adjournment and no evidence provided for the lack of attendance, the hearing was held in the tenants’ absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, did not remove all rubbish and did not leave all chattels.
The landlord provided photographic evidence and an invoice for cleaning from Green Acres for $475.00 to show that the property was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord provided photographic evidence and an invoice from T J’s Mowing for $109.25 to show that the gardens were not left tidy and free of rubbish as required by the Act and by paragraph 19 of the initial tenancy agreement.
The yellow Christchurch City Council recycle bin was missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided correspondence from the council to prove that the bin had been confiscated due to persistent improper use by the tenant. The cost of replacement was confirmed by an invoice from the Council in the amount of $97.65.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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) under section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage under section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.
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.
During the tenancy, the tenant had caused damage or marks to walls in the garage, lounge and one bedroom. The tenant had attempted to fix the damage by having the walls repaired and the paintwork touched up. Unfortunately, the paint colour did not match the initial wall colour and the landlord was required to have the garage and lounge plastered (where repairs had been attempted) and repainted completely. The bedroom required one wall to be repaired and repainted.
The landlord provided photographs showing the damage and an invoice from OJJ Christchurch Central Ltd for $1147.70 confirming the cost of the repair.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered are proved.
As Braziers Limited as agent for Satmeet Singh Aujla has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4660735 — Property damage at 4 Aermacchi Lane, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4660735 — Property damage at 4 Aermacchi Lane, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions