What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4691012 about?

The tribunal order states: Penelope Frances Kean and Nicholas James Kean to pay Summit Property

How much money was awarded in case 4691012?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Garage Door Opener: $89.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Rebate: $276.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $55.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $385.25 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Tile: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Ranch Slider (50: $369.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4691012?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4691012?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9794791-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4691012 about?

The tribunal order states: Penelope Frances Kean and Nicholas James Kean to pay Summit Property

How much money was awarded in case 4691012?

Cleaning: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $86.25 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Garage Door Opener: $89.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Rebate: $276.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $55.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $385.25 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Tile: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Ranch Slider (50: $369.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4691012?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4691012?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9794791-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

488 Brook Street, The Brook, Nelson 7010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4691012 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4691012 — net $1,118.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen tile	$368.00		Repairs: Kitchen tile
Repairs: Doors	$385.25		Repairs: Doors
Carpet Cleaning	$220.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Part	$86.25		Cleaning: Part
Lawns and Garden work	$55.00		Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Ranch slider (50	$369.15		Repairs: Ranch slider (50
Compensation: Garage door opener		$89.00	Garage door opener
Compensation: Rent rebate		$276.00	Rent rebate
Total award	$1,483.65	$365.00
Net award	$1,118.65
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,118.65

Penelope Frances Kean and Nicholas James Kean to pay Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Anthony James Kirk Allan Gledhill & Judith Louise Gledhill $1,118.65 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (5575920-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Summit Property Management Limited As Agent For Anthony James Kirk Allan Gledhill & Judith Louise Gledhill: $1,118.65 Penelope Frances Kean and Nicholas James Kean: $1,361.35

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants joined the hearing via teleconference as they now live away from the region.

The tenants have applied for compensation, and return of the bond.

The landlord has applied for compensation, and refund of the bond.

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.

The premises was constructed in 2008. It was owner occupied from then until 2021 when a first tenancy formed. This tenancy was the second. All occupants have had dogs at the premises. These tenants also had a cat.

The first tenancy was a fixed-term that ended early. That agreement was assigned to these tenants, a curious arrangement given it was advertised and relet by Summit in the usual manner. I was told this was the preference of the owner. Given the assignment, and illness of the property manager at that time, the condition of the premises in June 2022 is not well established as no full exit/entry inspection took place.

The landlord relies on a copy of the ingoing inspection report from 2021, with handwritten notes from the incoming tenants in June 2022 after they were provided a copy to review. Evidentially this is suboptimal given the claims now. A further challenge to a number of the landlord claims is the continued reliance on quotes rather than invoices. A new (third) tenancy has formed and some three months lapsed. Given this, I provided for the landlord to provide the ingoing inspection report for the current tenancy as that might clarify what existing damage, now claimed, was recorded.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. The tenant application

The tenancy ended on 11 September 2023. This was a Monday and the tenants moved out on the Friday before. They had offered to end the tenancy earlier from that Friday but the offer was declined. Their preference was to have a joint exit inspection that day too. That did not occur. On Saturday 9 September 2023 the owner uplifted the premises keys from the property manager. He had previously indicated his desire to attend to the garden but also enter the house.

The tenants sought the equivalent of three days rent ($276.00) to be compensated, arguing the owner had effectively taken possession back from 9 September 2023. I accept their argument. They had offered an earlier end date, of obvious benefit to them given their travel plans, and this was declined. The only beneficial use of the premises during these last three days was to the owner. There would be no benefit to the exiting tenants from the activities planned or conducted during this period before the tenancy ended.

I consider in the release of the keys to the owner, the purpose of which can only be to enter the house rather than just attend to the garden, and his subsequent entry that it would be inequitable for the tenants to pay rent during this period and I award the equivalent of three days rent as compensation.

The tenants also sourced a replacement garage door remote after the existing one failed. This was at a cost of $89.00, established via an invoice. The remote was left at the end of the tenancy and I return the $89.00 via a compensation award. This was not disputed by the landlord. The landlord application

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 landlord claims the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and the carpet required cleaning. The claims were supported by invoices and photos. The tenants had arranged cleaning themselves and disputed the additional costs claimed. I therefore rely on the evidence. Having reviewed that I consider some further cleaning was required but not to the extent described in the invoice. I have awarded 50% of the invoice for cleaning – after a $20.00 separate charge was mutually agreed as not applicable and deducted. I also have awarded the carpet cleaning cost. The need for this is harder to establish via photographs but given the overall condition at the end of the tenancy and the dog and cat in residence I find it more than likely the carpet required the cleaning and treatment and I award the $220.00.

The landlord claims the lawns needed mowing. An invoice for $55.00 was produced, as were photos. The tenants submitted the lawns had been cut before the end of the tenancy but noted the wet weather at that time and the poor condition of the lawn in some areas. I have reviewed the photos and consider there are areas of the lawn that show growth or length that is inconsistent with a recent mow and award the $55.00 as sought.

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 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.

“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or negligent damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation. The tenants had a view that pet damage should be deemed wear and tear, claiming the rent was inflated from the market value to allow for such. Given the new tenancy, with no pets, was set at the same rent I do not agree with that view.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Dog damage to external joinery: The ranch slider external joinery show significant scratching, most likely from a dog. There is no reference to this in the previous inspection reports but it is noted in the most recent. The landlord claims $738.30 based on a quote. Having considered the submissions, prior dogs in residence, and the lack of a definitive condition report or photos at the commencement of this tenancy, I have determined the tenant liability should be capped at 50% of the quoted cost to fix, a sum of $369.15. This is awarded. b. Internal door – mismatched paint. The dog had damaged an internal door and the tenants attempted to colour match and paint to repair the damage. Unfortunately the colour sourced did not match and the finish is two tone. I accept the cost of $385.25 as reasonable for the work required to reinstate the door to its prior condition. c. A kitchen tile was damaged after a slow cooker was dragged off the benchtop by the dog. The cost to repair this is $368.00 and while the tenants maintained it could have been done cheaper, they missed the opportunity to make such a repair before the tenancy ended. The cost of $368.00 is awarded in full.

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

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord also sought compensation for the insurance excess for the kitchen benchtop replacement ($550.00) and cat pulls/stain(s) in bedroom 2 ($195.00).

These two claims are declined: Benchtop

The kitchen benchtop is original. Both parties provided photos of the benchtop and I accept some discolouration of one area due, most likely, to a hot object being placed on it, occurred during the tenancy. The insurer has settled with the owner but the benchtop is yet to be replaced.

In 2021, the first ingoing condition report noted the benchtop as having some minor scuffs and some light scratches but in otherwise good condition. The most recent inspection recorded the following (with the new tenant edits in pen):

The benchtop is yet to be replaced but the owner has said he intends to do so when convenient for the tenants. No messaging to date on when and how this might occur have been provided.

Having reviewed the photos provided by both, and the current condition of the benchtop I do nor consider it proven the tenants should pay the excess as sought. There is significant wear and tear on a high use benchtop, in use since 2008. The stain is accepted but considered in the wider context of the coverall condition of the benchtop and the continued tenancies. The insurance payment, less excess, for any eventual replacement cost, is with the landlord. The benchtop still presents in reasonable condition and any decision to eventually replace it is at the owner’s discretion as it is still a functional workspace. Cat pull/stain

The recent ingoing condition reports notes for this bedroom:

This claim is supported by photos. These show the damage as claimed but I decline the claim as the carpet elsewhere is considered to be in worse condition than here at the start of the tenancy and it is unreasonable to target the one area of tenant damage at the end of the tenancy and ignore the others in existence at the start of the tenancy. This is the only carpet repair quote sought by the landlord. Other areas of carpet are recorded most recently as: Application filing fee

I leave each party to carry their application filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4691012 — net $1,118.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen tile	$368.00		Repairs: Kitchen tile
Repairs: Doors	$385.25		Repairs: Doors
Carpet Cleaning	$220.00		Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Part	$86.25		Cleaning: Part
Lawns and Garden work	$55.00		Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Ranch slider (50	$369.15		Repairs: Ranch slider (50
Compensation: Garage door opener		$89.00	Garage door opener
Compensation: Rent rebate		$276.00	Rent rebate
Total award	$1,483.65	$365.00
Net award	$1,118.65
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,118.65

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants joined the hearing via teleconference as they now live away from the region.

The tenants have applied for compensation, and return of the bond.

The landlord has applied for compensation, and refund of the bond.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered. The tenant application

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord also sought compensation for the insurance excess for the kitchen benchtop replacement ($550.00) and cat pulls/stain(s) in bedroom 2 ($195.00).

These two claims are declined: Benchtop

The benchtop is yet to be replaced but the owner has said he intends to do so when convenient for the tenants. No messaging to date on when and how this might occur have been provided.

The recent ingoing condition reports notes for this bedroom:

I leave each party to carry their application filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4691012 — Property damage at 488 Brook Street, The Brook, Nelson 7010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4691012 — Property damage at 488 Brook Street, The Brook, Nelson 7010

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