What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4675969 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay the landlord $846.95 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4675969?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; (bedroom wall, stairs cupboard, hall…: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Carpet Patch Of Stains: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675969?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10067828-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4675969 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay the landlord $846.95 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4675969?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; (bedroom wall, stairs cupboard, hall…: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Carpet Patch Of Stains: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675969?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10067828-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4675969 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4675969 — net $846.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: (bedroom wall, stairs cupboard, hallway	$517.50	Repairs: (bedroom wall, stairs cupboard, hallway
Repairs: carpet patch of stains	$460.00	Repairs: carpet patch of stains
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$846.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$846.95

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay the landlord $846.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $150.99 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the remaining bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Name suppression
The landlord, being the wholly successful party is entitled to name suppression and made an application for suppression on the application form submitted to the Tribunal.
The tenant made an application during the hearing for her name and identifying details to be suppressed. The tenant had gone to considerable lengths to ensure the property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state, and she had tried to remedy the damage that occurred to the walls when the removal company removed her furniture. She had the walls plastered but had insufficient time to have them sanded and had no access to paint that matched the walls. She had also tried to get the stains out of the carpet and provided evidence that she had engaged a contractor to patch the carpet in areas where she did not believe the stains could be removed by a steam clean.
The public interest in this matter does not outweigh the significant duress publishing the tenant’s name could result in when she applies for future tenancies. I therefore grant her suppression of her name and identifying details.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenants failed to leave the garden around the deck in a reasonably tidy state and that it required weeding and the old dead hedge and kikuyu grass growing through the dead hedge needed to be taken away.
The tenants produced a video of the property that was taken by the property management company just prior to their tenancy commencing. The link to the YouTube video was in an email from the property manager to the tenant dated Wednesday 26 Oct 2022 at 17:33. The email reads “Please find attached copy of the inspection report that was completed today. Please go through the report and make sure you agree with how the property has been presented in this report. If you like to make any comments regarding the condition of the house, please feel free to do so. It will be helpful if you add photos to support your case. Please make sure you get in touch with us within 7 days of the start of your tenancy. Below is the link to a video clip that was taken today that shows the condition of the property”.
The property manager initially denied having sent the video link to the tenant, but the email address clearly shows the property manager was the sender. After seeing the email containing the link she claimed she must have forgotten sending this email and claimed she had never seen the video.
The tenant did take her own entry and exit photographs and submitted them in evidence to the Tribunal. These photographs and the video clearly show the hedge around the deck was dead and full of kikuyu grass at the commencement of the tenancy and was in a very similar state at the end of the tenancy. Again, the property manager denied having received the photographs the tenant submitted to the Tribunal, but the tenant showed the property manager and I the emails that clearly evidence the property manager’s email address on all emails sent by the tenant to the Tribunal.
The tenant also produced an invoice and photographs in evidence that prove she engaged the same gardener the property management company had always used to maintain the property, to undertake an exit weeding and tiding of the property. He was instructed to weed and tidy so the property was at the same standard as when the tenancy commenced. I am satisfied that the tenants left the grounds in a reasonably tidy state and should not be held liable for the cost of removing and disposing of the dead head and kikuyu grass.
The landlord’s claim for $230.00 for removing and disposing of the dead head and kikuyu grass around the deck is dismissed for lack of evidence to support the claim and the tenant has successfully disproven the claim.

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.
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 (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 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A hole was made in the bedroom wall when the tenant’s furniture was being moved by the furniture removal company. The tenant accepted liability for this damage; b. The tenant’s children made a hole in the understairs cupboard when moving a gazebo back into the cupboard. The tenant accepted liability for this damage; c. Some plaster was knocked off the corner of the wall in the hallway when the tenant’s furniture was being moved by the furniture removal company. The tenant accepted liability for this damage; d. There are some stains on the carpet the tenant could not remove with a product she purchased from the supermarket. She had not tried to get the stains professionally removed but believed they could have been removed by a professional cleaner and that patching these areas of the carpet was unnecessary. The costs incurred by the landlord for patching these areas of the carpet where the tenant’s children had drawn, or spilt ink would have been the same or similar to the $460.00 it cost to patch the carpet; and e. There is a hole in the downstairs bathroom wall that was caused by the door banging on the wall because the door stopper was broken and had not been repaired by the landlord. The tenants say they had raised this, and other broken door stoppers with the property manager during inspections. The property manager denied being informed of the broken door stoppers and refuted that the hole cold be caused by the wind blowing the door against the wall. She stated that it was careless or intentional damage. On the balance of probabilities, I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the damage was caused by the broken door stopper and that the property manager had been informed of this issue and had not had it repaired. The photographic evidence supports the tenant’s narrative and the tenant proved to be truthful repeatedly throughout the hearing and had hard evidence to support all her oral evidence. The property manager on the other hand appeared to be forgetful and had denied oral evidence the tenant gave in defence of the landlord’s clams, only to have the tenant provide written evidence to support her oral evidence.
The damage outlined in paragraphs 16 (a) to (d) are more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has accepted liability for the damage.
The landlord failed to prove that the damage outlined in paragraph 16(e) was carelessly or intentionally done by the tenant and the tenant has provided evidence which disproves her liability for the hole in the downstairs bathroom wall. The landlord’s claim for $172.50 for this hole repair is dismissed.
The amounts ordered for the damage to the bedroom wall, the understairs cupboard and the hallway are proved and $517.50 is awarded to the landlord for repair of this damage.
The amount ordered for the patching of the carpet has been proven by the landlord and responsibility for the damage has not been disproven by the tenant
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the lanldord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4675969 — net $846.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: (bedroom wall, stairs cupboard, hallway	$517.50	Repairs: (bedroom wall, stairs cupboard, hallway
Repairs: carpet patch of stains	$460.00	Repairs: carpet patch of stains
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$846.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$846.95

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay the landlord $846.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $150.99 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the remaining bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Name suppression
The landlord, being the wholly successful party is entitled to name suppression and made an application for suppression on the application form submitted to the Tribunal.
The tenant made an application during the hearing for her name and identifying details to be suppressed. The tenant had gone to considerable lengths to ensure the property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state, and she had tried to remedy the damage that occurred to the walls when the removal company removed her furniture. She had the walls plastered but had insufficient time to have them sanded and had no access to paint that matched the walls. She had also tried to get the stains out of the carpet and provided evidence that she had engaged a contractor to patch the carpet in areas where she did not believe the stains could be removed by a steam clean.
The public interest in this matter does not outweigh the significant duress publishing the tenant’s name could result in when she applies for future tenancies. I therefore grant her suppression of her name and identifying details.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenants failed to leave the garden around the deck in a reasonably tidy state and that it required weeding and the old dead hedge and kikuyu grass growing through the dead hedge needed to be taken away.
The tenants produced a video of the property that was taken by the property management company just prior to their tenancy commencing. The link to the YouTube video was in an email from the property manager to the tenant dated Wednesday 26 Oct 2022 at 17:33. The email reads “Please find attached copy of the inspection report that was completed today. Please go through the report and make sure you agree with how the property has been presented in this report. If you like to make any comments regarding the condition of the house, please feel free to do so. It will be helpful if you add photos to support your case. Please make sure you get in touch with us within 7 days of the start of your tenancy. Below is the link to a video clip that was taken today that shows the condition of the property”.
The property manager initially denied having sent the video link to the tenant, but the email address clearly shows the property manager was the sender. After seeing the email containing the link she claimed she must have forgotten sending this email and claimed she had never seen the video.
The tenant did take her own entry and exit photographs and submitted them in evidence to the Tribunal. These photographs and the video clearly show the hedge around the deck was dead and full of kikuyu grass at the commencement of the tenancy and was in a very similar state at the end of the tenancy. Again, the property manager denied having received the photographs the tenant submitted to the Tribunal, but the tenant showed the property manager and I the emails that clearly evidence the property manager’s email address on all emails sent by the tenant to the Tribunal.
The tenant also produced an invoice and photographs in evidence that prove she engaged the same gardener the property management company had always used to maintain the property, to undertake an exit weeding and tiding of the property. He was instructed to weed and tidy so the property was at the same standard as when the tenancy commenced. I am satisfied that the tenants left the grounds in a reasonably tidy state and should not be held liable for the cost of removing and disposing of the dead head and kikuyu grass.
The landlord’s claim for $230.00 for removing and disposing of the dead head and kikuyu grass around the deck is dismissed for lack of evidence to support the claim and the tenant has successfully disproven the claim.

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.
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 (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 Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A hole was made in the bedroom wall when the tenant’s furniture was being moved by the furniture removal company. The tenant accepted liability for this damage; b. The tenant’s children made a hole in the understairs cupboard when moving a gazebo back into the cupboard. The tenant accepted liability for this damage; c. Some plaster was knocked off the corner of the wall in the hallway when the tenant’s furniture was being moved by the furniture removal company. The tenant accepted liability for this damage; d. There are some stains on the carpet the tenant could not remove with a product she purchased from the supermarket. She had not tried to get the stains professionally removed but believed they could have been removed by a professional cleaner and that patching these areas of the carpet was unnecessary. The costs incurred by the landlord for patching these areas of the carpet where the tenant’s children had drawn, or spilt ink would have been the same or similar to the $460.00 it cost to patch the carpet; and e. There is a hole in the downstairs bathroom wall that was caused by the door banging on the wall because the door stopper was broken and had not been repaired by the landlord. The tenants say they had raised this, and other broken door stoppers with the property manager during inspections. The property manager denied being informed of the broken door stoppers and refuted that the hole cold be caused by the wind blowing the door against the wall. She stated that it was careless or intentional damage. On the balance of probabilities, I prefer the tenant’s evidence that the damage was caused by the broken door stopper and that the property manager had been informed of this issue and had not had it repaired. The photographic evidence supports the tenant’s narrative and the tenant proved to be truthful repeatedly throughout the hearing and had hard evidence to support all her oral evidence. The property manager on the other hand appeared to be forgetful and had denied oral evidence the tenant gave in defence of the landlord’s clams, only to have the tenant provide written evidence to support her oral evidence.
The damage outlined in paragraphs 16 (a) to (d) are more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has accepted liability for the damage.
The landlord failed to prove that the damage outlined in paragraph 16(e) was carelessly or intentionally done by the tenant and the tenant has provided evidence which disproves her liability for the hole in the downstairs bathroom wall. The landlord’s claim for $172.50 for this hole repair is dismissed.
The amounts ordered for the damage to the bedroom wall, the understairs cupboard and the hallway are proved and $517.50 is awarded to the landlord for repair of this damage.
The amount ordered for the patching of the carpet has been proven by the landlord and responsibility for the damage has not been disproven by the tenant
I have considered betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because the lanldord has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675969 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4675969 — Property damage

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