What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4678110?

The tribunal order states: Ursula Lilley must pay Maruia Cian Brunner-Parker $503.59 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4678110?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,720.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $103.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4678110?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4678110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10199514-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4678110?

The tribunal order states: Ursula Lilley must pay Maruia Cian Brunner-Parker $503.59 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4678110?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,720.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $103.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4678110?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4678110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10199514-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Landview Road, Parkvale, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4678110 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4678110 — net $503.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for floor damage 20	$1,720.00	Compensation for floor damage 20
Window repairs	$103.15	Window repairs
Repairs and painting	$900.00	Repairs and painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$503.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$503.59

Order

Ursula Lilley must pay Maruia Cian Brunner-Parker $503.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (5430036-007) to Maruia Cian Brunner-Parker immediately.
The claim by Ursula Lilley is dismissed.

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 has counterclaimed for compensation and refund of her bond.
Both parties requested hearing related costs. Apart from reimbursing the filing fee, the circumstances in which the Tribunal can consider costs are limited, and none apply in this case.
The tenancy was for about 2 years from 19 July 2021 to 24 August 2023. The tenant’s claim:
The tenant’s claim is for refund of her bond ($2,240.00), compensation for removal of lawnmowing services ($1,004.95), loan interest ($564.62), and hearing costs of $50.00.
Lawnmowing: At the start of the tenancy the landlord paid for a contractor to mow the lawns, although this was not a written term of the tenancy. In late 2022, the landlord advised the tenant that she was “looking at cancelling” the lawn mowing in the new year. She asked the tenant if she wanted to continue with the contractor. In response the tenant said “Please could you go ahead and cancel the lawn service for me? I’ve brought a lawnmower.”
The parties disagree on whether lawn mowing was an oral term of the contract. The tenant says she was told before she signed the contract that lawn mowing was included; the landlord says this was discussed after signing and was not a term of the agreement.
The fact that the lawn mowing was not included in the written contract tends to support the landlord’s point of view. This is also supported by the tenant’s reaction when the landlord proposed to end the service. While tenants can be reluctant to insist of their rights, there was no suggestion in the tenant’s messaging that the landlord was unilaterally altering the contract to her detriment. Therefore, the claim for lawnmowing costs is not proved.
Bond loan: Because the bond was not returned to the tenant at the end of the tenancy, she says she had to borrow for the bond on her new property. As will become apparent, the landlord had a legitimate claim against the bond and she is therefore not liable for any costs resulting from its non-return at the end of the tenancy. Landlord’s claim

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the house reasonably clean and the grounds reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s photographs tend to show that she left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. She says she made significant improvements to the grounds and that keeping the area at the back of the house tidy was a constant battle.
The landlord has not provided any photographs of the interior of the house to prove it was not reasonably clean. The landlord has provided photographs of the grounds that show some overgrown areas. However, the photographs do not show the grounds as a whole and there are no comparative photos from the start of the tenancy. The claim is not 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 (s 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA).
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 (s 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 (s 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 (s 49B(3A)(a) RTA).
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional (s 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 virtual certainty (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
In assessing compensation, the Tribunal must take into account betterment and depreciation. A 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 some situations, the amount of compensation payable once betterment and depreciation is taken into account will be less than the amount calculated under s 49B. This will largely depend on the age and condition of the item in question and the degree of damage caused.
Louvre window: A louvre pane was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant says she does not know how the damage occurred and did not cause it. However, she has not met the onus of disproving liability. Therefore, the claim is proved.
Toilet roll holder: The landlord has not excluded fair wear and tear.
Repairs: The landlord claims $361.69 for repairing nail holes in interior and exterior window frames; $1,572.83 for replacing the French door architrave, fixing the floor surround, and repairing the corner of a window; $208.90 for repairing and painting walls; $94.14 for painting an exterior window frame (where a pane of glass was replaced); and $554.00 for repairing the French door.
The landlord provided photographs of several nails in an exterior window frame, nail or pin holes in interior frames, inadequate repairs by the tenant, bird damage to the French door architrave and the corner of a window, a window frame that was not painted after the glass pane was replaced, and marks and damage on walls that is more than fair wear and tear. In relation to the floor surround and the French door, the landlord has not excluded fair wear and tear. She claims the tenant is responsible for water damage to the surround, and that the French door was damaged either by rough usage or animals. However, this is speculative.
The landlord has claimed the cost of materials and labour at an hourly rate ranging from $40.00 to $80.00. She has not provided receipts for the materials used, which she says were damaged in a flood, but has provided screenshots of their advertised cost.
Where a landlord has carried out repair work, the Tribunal does not reimburse at commercial rates, as a landlord does not have the same overheads as a tradesperson. Generally, it does not allow more than about $30.00 an hour. The landlord claims 26.5 hours in repair time. The repairs themselves were relatively straightforward, and I have therefore reduced the time allowed to 20 hours ($600.00). Most of the material costs are proved, although some of the costs (e.g., 11 sheets of sandpaper) have been overclaimed. I have allowed $300.00 for materials, making a total of $900.00 for the repairs.
Sanding and re-coating wooden floor: The landlord claims $8,602.00 for sanding and sealing the floor. She says the floor was in “pristine newly renovated” condition at the start of the tenancy, although there must have been some wear and tear as some of the floors were last sanded and sealed 4 years ago and some 7 years ago.
The landlord’s photographs show scratch marks on the floor, residue of bird droppings, and a dull surface finish. She believes the tenant used a steam mop on the floor as well as harsh cleaning chemicals. She bases the former claim on the fact that a box for a steam mop was found in the recycling bin at the end of the tenancy. An insurance claim was declined on the basis that the policy did not cover damage caused by cleaning where inappropriate materials or methods have been used. She has provided a repair quote which refers to the floor having been cleaned with a harsh chemical and that the cleaning marks on the floor “could easily be” from a steam mop.
The tenant denies using a steam mop on the floor and says someone else must have left the steam mop box in the recycling bin. That explanation seems implausible.
The comparative photos provided by the landlord show the floor was in better condition at the start of the tenancy than at the end, with a high level of sheen at the start and a pattern of dull marks at the end. The landlord’s close up photos also show scratches on the surface, although there are no similar close-ups from the start of the tenancy. Overall, the photos show damage more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved carelessness.
Although the landlord has proved that damage occurred during the tenancy, this does mean she has proved the remedial cost claimed. The Tribunal does not have a specific depreciation guideline for the lifespan of a sealed wooden floor. Obviously, wooden floors will need to be sanded and sealed from time to time, and different sources suggest lifespans ranging from 7-10 years and 12-15 years. A floor may be sanded and sealed up to 6-10 times during its lifetime.
The landlord says the hall and two bedrooms were sanded and sealed 4 years ago and the other rooms 7 years ago. Therefore, the sealed surfaces were anywhere between one-third and over halfway through their expected lifespan. Accordingly, the landlord cannot realistically claim the full remedial cost. In addition, the premises have been re-tenanted in their existing state without the floor being re-sealed. Therefore, it is difficult to predict when they will actually be re-sealed. At best, it is reasonable to assume that they will need to be sanded and sealed sooner than would have been the case had the damage not occurred.
In these circumstances, one way of calculating compensation is to base it on ‘accelerated’ depreciation. Taking all relevant factors into account, I have calculated compensation at 20% of the remedial cost quoted. This recognises that the floor will likely need to be re-sealed 2-3 years earlier than would otherwise have been the case. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been partially successful with her claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. J P Smith 17 April 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4678110 — net $503.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for floor damage 20	$1,720.00	Compensation for floor damage 20
Window repairs	$103.15	Window repairs
Repairs and painting	$900.00	Repairs and painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$503.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$503.59

Order

Ursula Lilley must pay Maruia Cian Brunner-Parker $503.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (5430036-007) to Maruia Cian Brunner-Parker immediately.
The claim by Ursula Lilley is dismissed.

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 has counterclaimed for compensation and refund of her bond.
Both parties requested hearing related costs. Apart from reimbursing the filing fee, the circumstances in which the Tribunal can consider costs are limited, and none apply in this case.
The tenancy was for about 2 years from 19 July 2021 to 24 August 2023. The tenant’s claim:
The tenant’s claim is for refund of her bond ($2,240.00), compensation for removal of lawnmowing services ($1,004.95), loan interest ($564.62), and hearing costs of $50.00.
Lawnmowing: At the start of the tenancy the landlord paid for a contractor to mow the lawns, although this was not a written term of the tenancy. In late 2022, the landlord advised the tenant that she was “looking at cancelling” the lawn mowing in the new year. She asked the tenant if she wanted to continue with the contractor. In response the tenant said “Please could you go ahead and cancel the lawn service for me? I’ve brought a lawnmower.”
The parties disagree on whether lawn mowing was an oral term of the contract. The tenant says she was told before she signed the contract that lawn mowing was included; the landlord says this was discussed after signing and was not a term of the agreement.
The fact that the lawn mowing was not included in the written contract tends to support the landlord’s point of view. This is also supported by the tenant’s reaction when the landlord proposed to end the service. While tenants can be reluctant to insist of their rights, there was no suggestion in the tenant’s messaging that the landlord was unilaterally altering the contract to her detriment. Therefore, the claim for lawnmowing costs is not proved.
Bond loan: Because the bond was not returned to the tenant at the end of the tenancy, she says she had to borrow for the bond on her new property. As will become apparent, the landlord had a legitimate claim against the bond and she is therefore not liable for any costs resulting from its non-return at the end of the tenancy. Landlord’s claim

Did the tenant comply with her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the house reasonably clean and the grounds reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s photographs tend to show that she left the premises reasonably clean and tidy. She says she made significant improvements to the grounds and that keeping the area at the back of the house tidy was a constant battle.
The landlord has not provided any photographs of the interior of the house to prove it was not reasonably clean. The landlord has provided photographs of the grounds that show some overgrown areas. However, the photographs do not show the grounds as a whole and there are no comparative photos from the start of the tenancy. The claim is not 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 (s 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA).
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 (s 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 (s 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 (s 49B(3A)(a) RTA).
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional (s 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 virtual certainty (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
In assessing compensation, the Tribunal must take into account betterment and depreciation. A 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 some situations, the amount of compensation payable once betterment and depreciation is taken into account will be less than the amount calculated under s 49B. This will largely depend on the age and condition of the item in question and the degree of damage caused.
Louvre window: A louvre pane was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant says she does not know how the damage occurred and did not cause it. However, she has not met the onus of disproving liability. Therefore, the claim is proved.
Toilet roll holder: The landlord has not excluded fair wear and tear.
Repairs: The landlord claims $361.69 for repairing nail holes in interior and exterior window frames; $1,572.83 for replacing the French door architrave, fixing the floor surround, and repairing the corner of a window; $208.90 for repairing and painting walls; $94.14 for painting an exterior window frame (where a pane of glass was replaced); and $554.00 for repairing the French door.
The landlord provided photographs of several nails in an exterior window frame, nail or pin holes in interior frames, inadequate repairs by the tenant, bird damage to the French door architrave and the corner of a window, a window frame that was not painted after the glass pane was replaced, and marks and damage on walls that is more than fair wear and tear. In relation to the floor surround and the French door, the landlord has not excluded fair wear and tear. She claims the tenant is responsible for water damage to the surround, and that the French door was damaged either by rough usage or animals. However, this is speculative.
The landlord has claimed the cost of materials and labour at an hourly rate ranging from $40.00 to $80.00. She has not provided receipts for the materials used, which she says were damaged in a flood, but has provided screenshots of their advertised cost.
Where a landlord has carried out repair work, the Tribunal does not reimburse at commercial rates, as a landlord does not have the same overheads as a tradesperson. Generally, it does not allow more than about $30.00 an hour. The landlord claims 26.5 hours in repair time. The repairs themselves were relatively straightforward, and I have therefore reduced the time allowed to 20 hours ($600.00). Most of the material costs are proved, although some of the costs (e.g., 11 sheets of sandpaper) have been overclaimed. I have allowed $300.00 for materials, making a total of $900.00 for the repairs.
Sanding and re-coating wooden floor: The landlord claims $8,602.00 for sanding and sealing the floor. She says the floor was in “pristine newly renovated” condition at the start of the tenancy, although there must have been some wear and tear as some of the floors were last sanded and sealed 4 years ago and some 7 years ago.
The landlord’s photographs show scratch marks on the floor, residue of bird droppings, and a dull surface finish. She believes the tenant used a steam mop on the floor as well as harsh cleaning chemicals. She bases the former claim on the fact that a box for a steam mop was found in the recycling bin at the end of the tenancy. An insurance claim was declined on the basis that the policy did not cover damage caused by cleaning where inappropriate materials or methods have been used. She has provided a repair quote which refers to the floor having been cleaned with a harsh chemical and that the cleaning marks on the floor “could easily be” from a steam mop.
The tenant denies using a steam mop on the floor and says someone else must have left the steam mop box in the recycling bin. That explanation seems implausible.
The comparative photos provided by the landlord show the floor was in better condition at the start of the tenancy than at the end, with a high level of sheen at the start and a pattern of dull marks at the end. The landlord’s close up photos also show scratches on the surface, although there are no similar close-ups from the start of the tenancy. Overall, the photos show damage more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved carelessness.
Although the landlord has proved that damage occurred during the tenancy, this does mean she has proved the remedial cost claimed. The Tribunal does not have a specific depreciation guideline for the lifespan of a sealed wooden floor. Obviously, wooden floors will need to be sanded and sealed from time to time, and different sources suggest lifespans ranging from 7-10 years and 12-15 years. A floor may be sanded and sealed up to 6-10 times during its lifetime.
The landlord says the hall and two bedrooms were sanded and sealed 4 years ago and the other rooms 7 years ago. Therefore, the sealed surfaces were anywhere between one-third and over halfway through their expected lifespan. Accordingly, the landlord cannot realistically claim the full remedial cost. In addition, the premises have been re-tenanted in their existing state without the floor being re-sealed. Therefore, it is difficult to predict when they will actually be re-sealed. At best, it is reasonable to assume that they will need to be sanded and sealed sooner than would have been the case had the damage not occurred.
In these circumstances, one way of calculating compensation is to base it on ‘accelerated’ depreciation. Taking all relevant factors into account, I have calculated compensation at 20% of the remedial cost quoted. This recognises that the floor will likely need to be re-sealed 2-3 years earlier than would otherwise have been the case. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been partially successful with her claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. J P Smith 17 April 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4678110 — Property damage at 17 Landview Road, Parkvale, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4678110 — Property damage at 17 Landview Road, Parkvale, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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 her 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