What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4722591 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $4,626.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4722591?

Cleaning: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Dog Fees: $6,600.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Overpaid Rent: $4,714.29 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $37.11 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,227.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain: $114.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Towel Rail: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $560.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4722591?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4722591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10869882-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4722591 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $4,626.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4722591?

Cleaning: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Dog Fees: $6,600.00 awarded to tenant; Lightbulbs: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Overpaid Rent: $4,714.29 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $37.11 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $195.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $5,227.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtain: $114.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Towel Rail: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $560.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4722591?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4722591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10869882-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4722591 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4722591 — net $1,051.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 26/5/24	$1,300.00		Rent arrears to 26/5/24
Replace furnishings: curtain	$114.00		Replace furnishings: curtain
Window repairs: front door	$560.00		Window repairs: front door
Cleaning	$1,000.00		Cleaning
Plug replacements	$37.11		Plug replacements
Garage door remote replacement	$195.00		Garage door remote replacement
Wall and door damage	$5,227.00		Wall and door damage
Shower replacement	$1,500.00		Shower replacement
Laundry step replacement	$130.00		Laundry step replacement
Replace towel rail	$150.00		Replace towel rail
Light bulb replacement	$50.00		Light bulb replacement
Dog fees		$6,600.00	Dog fees
Overpaid rent		$4,714.29	Overpaid rent
Total award	$10,263.11	$11,314.29
Net award		$1,051.18
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,051.18

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4722591 — net $1,051.18 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 26/5/24	$1,300.00		Rent arrears to 26/5/24
Replace furnishings: curtain	$114.00		Replace furnishings: curtain
Window repairs: front door	$560.00		Window repairs: front door
Cleaning	$1,000.00		Cleaning
Plug replacements	$37.11		Plug replacements
Garage door remote replacement	$195.00		Garage door remote replacement
Wall and door damage	$5,227.00		Wall and door damage
Shower replacement	$1,500.00		Shower replacement
Laundry step replacement	$130.00		Laundry step replacement
Replace towel rail	$150.00		Replace towel rail
Light bulb replacement	$50.00		Light bulb replacement
Dog fees		$6,600.00	Dog fees
Overpaid rent		$4,714.29	Overpaid rent
Total award	$10,263.11	$11,314.29
Net award		$1,051.18
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$1,051.18

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $4,626.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Tribunal declares that the weekly rent for the premises should have been $800 from 16 January to 26 May 2024 as the rent charged for that period exceeded the market rent by a substantial amount.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,760.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to [The tenant/s]
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The owners, [the owner/s] attended the hearing with the assistance of an interpreter. [The property manager/s] represented [The property management company] who commenced managing the tenancy for the last month. [The tenant/s] 1 also attended.
These proceedings have had a protracted background. [Owner 1]’s initial application was made in October 2023. The first hearing was held in January 2024 and an order was made on 17 January. The second hearing was on 30 April which resulted in the tenancy ending on 26 May. A case conference was held in August and the final hearing on 24 September.
Both parties have filed claims and I address them all separately below. Before doing so I remind the parties of the relevant standard of proof. It is the balance of probabilities, interpreted as what is more likely than not, and the burden lies with the applicant of each claim.
Before I commence, I also note that the awards ordered for replacing the curtain and repairing the front door were made by consent. Landlord applications

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which show $1,300 in rent arrears. This is comprised of the last two weeks of the tenancy being paid at a rate of $800 and the rent being paid at $100 less for the preceding weeks.
[The tenant/s] says she paid one week at $800 as that is what the property manager [previous property manager/s] told her and the last week at $800 as she considers she was being charged at above market rent.
It is accepted that [previous property manager/s] made an error in telling [The tenant/s] the rent was $800 when in fact it was $1,250. He corrected this error.
On the evidence I am satisfied that the rent amount was not formally changed given the retraction, and [The tenant/s] was liable for the amount of $1,250 per 1 approximately week. Whether this is in excess of market rent is a different amount and discussed below.
Accordingly, I find the amount claimed established as owing.

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

The landlord claims compensation for the way the property was left when [The tenant/s] vacated. At the end of the tenancy a 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 (RTA). Cleaning
The landlord claims reimbursement of an invoice for $1,000 for cleaning. The invoice from the cleaner states: this work was underquoted and does not reflect the true value of work carried out as it took 4 men 70 hours.
[The property manager/s] says the property was one of the worst he has seen in his career of 30 years. He says there was copious amounts of grease, fly dirt, marks on walls and doors and it was very smelly. He had obtained a quote for $1700 + GST from cleaners who inspected the property. Given the high amount [Owner 2] says she cleaned it and then they got in their own cleaners, to reduce the cost.
[The tenant/s] accepts the home needed to be cleaned but says the property was not particularly clean when they moved in, and it is a very high invoice. She accepts however that issues of cleanliness were not raised with the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy and the ingoing inspection report which she signed notes that the property was in a reasonable condition.
A tenant's statutory obligation is to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. This is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant straight away. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined on the basis of the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also a tenant, generally, should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.
The evidence clearly shows the property needed a good clean. It does not appear to have been cleaned at all. The invoice is high however on the basis of the evidence I am satisfied that it is reasonable. The time was 70 hours which reduces to $14 per hour, and the amount claimed does not account [owner 2]’s work.
Accordingly, the order is made as sought. Missing plugs
The landlord claims $37.11 compensation for six plugs that they say were missing: 2 from the kitchen, 1 from the laundry, 3 in the two bathrooms and 1 from the garage.
[The tenant/s] thought she left all plugs when they vacated but accepts they had a lot of helpers so they could have been thrown away.
The exit inspection photos do not show any plugs. [The property manager/s] evidence is that he viewed the house and did not see any plugs. Accordingly, I find it substantiated in evidence that the plugs were missing, and [The tenant/s] should be responsible for them. Missing garage remote
The landlord says the garage door remote was not returned and seeks $195 in compensation for its replacement.
[The tenant/s] says they were never provided with a remote. It is however listed on the tenancy agreement which [The tenant/s] has signed. She says she just signed the report without checking and agrees she never raised the issue with [Owner 1].
As [The tenant/s] appears to have checked the boxes on the inspection report and signed the page listing that the remote was present, I find it established in evidence that it was. Accordingly, [The tenant/s] is responsible for the replacement cost.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims compensation for a significant amount of damage that occurred over the three-and-a-half-year tenancy. I discuss each item separately below but first reiterate the law on damage which I also discussed at paragraphs 8 to 11 of the January decision.
I also note that as discussed at paragraphs 32 to 35 of the January decision, the $6,600 [The tenant/s] has paid to have her dog is to be applied to damage costs given it was not a lawful rent increase and was paid to offset any dog damage. As that decision was not published, the following is the relevant excerpt: The law
In order to be successful in such a claim, 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. [Owner 1]’s evidence is that he does not have insurance that covers any of the claimed damage.
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.
Carelessness is not defined in the Act, but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care required is similar to the standard of care required by the general law of tort in negligence cases. Thus, the question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, was “exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances”: Mercier v Smith & Greenan14/12/98, Dunedin TT 228/93.
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. Insinkerator replacement & laundry piping repair
The landlord claims $909.55 for the replacement of the insinkerator and laundry repairs. The invoice details replace inskinkerator, fit tub and water leak repair.
He says the insinkerator was not working and [The tenant/s] told him they dropped a spoon into it. [The tenant/s] evidence is that she did report the issues with the inskinkerator early into the tenancy. [Owner 1] told her to fix it, so she had it replaced but the trade told her it was a power issue and was rusty. She says it then broke again shortly afterwards and they didn’t use it after that. She says they never dropped a spoon down it.
[Owner 1] says [The tenant/s] did not tell him it had broken a second time. He is unsure how old it is but says it was in situ when they brought the house in 2017. Their oral evidence is that the plumber said the parts inside were damaged by something sharp, however that is not substantiated in written evidence.
Waste disposal units have an expected lifespan of 8 years. The original unit therefore has almost exceeded that timeframe. I do not find it established in evidence that the tenants have carelessly or intentionally damaged the unit because there is no specific evidence from the plumber about why it needed to be replaced. It was the landlord’s burden to establish that this damage was more than fair wear and tear however he has not done so. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.
The other part of this claim is with respect to the laundry tub. The evidence substantiates that there was a leak, and the tap was missing. [The tenant/s] says that when they noticed the leak her son tried to fix it, but the tap broke off. She told [Owner 1] but he did not accept that there was a leak because it was dry when he inspected it. She says this is because they were using a laundromat at the time because the leak meant they could not use their washing machine.
I find this evidence credible, primarily because of the language issues I discussed at paragraphs 22 and 23 of the January decision. As follows:
I accept [The tenant/s] evidence that she told [Owner 1] there was a leak from the laundry and there is no evidence that he had a plumber investigate her concern.
Also in that decision 2 I noted that I was not at that time presented with evidence that substantiated a leak. However, the landlord’s own plumber has now found the leak [The tenant/s] was complaining about.
Accordingly, I do not find [The tenant/s] liable for this cost. She notified [Owner 1] of the leak as she was required, 3 and he failed to have it investigated by a trade. Had he, the flooring may not have been damaged as extensively and the tap would not have been broken when [The tenant/s] son attempted to repair it as directed.
Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Holes in the walls and doors
The landlord claims $5,227 for repairing holes in walls, scratches on window sills from the dogs, and damage to the garage, wardrobe and bathroom door. The damage has all been substantiated to have occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. 2 Paragraphs 39-41 3 Pursuant to section 40(1)(d) of the RTA
In the January decision I assessed the liability for the holes in the walls to be [The tenant/s]. 4 [The tenant/s] accepts this but wishes the dog damage money to go towards this damage which I consider reasonable.
Accordingly, the amounts sought are proven and considered reasonable in the circumstances. The “dog money” is to go towards this cost. Shower replacement
In the January decision I assessed the liability for the damage to the shower door to be [The tenant/s]. 5 [Owner 1] has had contractors replace the entire shower box to a cost of $2,268. He says this was necessary because they could not find a replacement door.
[The tenant/s] had had the opportunity to replace the shower door herself but did not. Accordingly, I consider the amount justified in the circumstances. I must however consider depreciation and betterment in this award. The landlord is entitled to 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 betterment and depreciation, I consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Taking this into account I find that an award of $1,500 towards this cost is reasonable as the landlord now has a new shower. Dining room floor
[Owner 1] claims $905 for repairing the dining room floor which had marks on it. The floor was stripped and re-polyurethaned. They say it was in good condition at the beginning of the tenancy although they had not re-coated it during the time they have owned the house. [The property manager/s] submits that the damage is in excess of fair wear and tear due to the amount of damage.
[The tenant/s] says the varnish has come off from use. They had six people living in the tenancy. 6
Having assessed the evidence I am satisfied that this damage was caused by fair wear and tear. The floor had not been re-stained for over 7 years and as a general rule, a floor that is coated with polyurethane should be re-coated every 5-7 years. However, areas of high use (such as this) may wear down sooner. [Owner 1] had allowed seven people to live in this property and accordingly must expect the corresponding wear and tear. It is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear. That is an incident of people living in 4 Paragraph 25 5 Paragraph 45 6 The tenancy agreement allowed 7. the premises, and that damage (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives.
This claim is dismissed. Laundry step
The laundry step was broken. In my January decision 7 , I assessed the liability to lie with [The tenant/s]. Accordingly, the amount sought is ordered. Towel rail
The landlord claims $250 for the replacement of the towel rail and 8 door stops. I do not find the placement of the door stops at the commencement of the tenancy established in evidence, however, find that the tenants were unduly rough with the towel rail. This is careless damage. Accordingly, I order $150 for the replacement of the towel rail having reduced the amount to account for depreciation. Lights
The landlord says the outdoor sensor light was broken, 5 downlights need to be replaced with LED lights and the kitchen light needed to be replaced. He seeks compensation for doing so.
[The tenant/s] says she heard the outdoor light blowing in the wind at times. She says they did nothing to it, it just stopped working. She says she discussed it with [Owner 1], but he did not replace it. The evidence has not established that the sensor light breaking was more than fair wear and tear, and so that claim is dismissed.
[Owner 1] says the downlights needed to be replaced with LED lights because they were damaged. [The tenant/s] says some weren’t working at the commencement of the tenancy and she could not replace the bulbs because they were specialised ones.
[The tenant/s] should not be liable for the upgrading of lights, i.e. the replacement of down lights with LED lights. It has however been established that some light bulbs were not working, accordingly I award a small amount for the replacement of those. I do not consider it appropriate for a tenant to be responsible of replacement of specialist lights and therefore only award an amount for the replacement of the standard bulbs. Flooring
Carpet was laid in four bedrooms, hallway and lounge. [Owner 1] says it was needed in the hallway and bedroom because of the board damage discussed above. The other rooms all had scratches on them he says which made them 7 Paragraph 43 unusable. His evidence is that laying carpet was cheaper than sanding and re- staining the areas.
As above, I find it established in evidence that there was a leak which was not investigated by [Owner 1]. Accordingly, I do not find [The tenant/s] liable for the damage to the flooring in the hallway or master bedroom [Owner 1] says he does not think it was a leak as the damage looked more like a chemical had been spilled. He has not however provided photos showing that damage.
I further make the same findings regarding the scratches on the floor as I have in the dining room, 8 i.e. that this was fair wear and tear and as such [The tenant/s] is not responsible for the damage. Therefore, [The tenant/s] is not liable for the cost of laying carpet throughout the home; that was a choice Mr and [Owner 1] made to upgrade their house. This claim is therefore dismissed. Filing fee
As the landlord was not substantially successful in their applications, I must decline their application for reimbursement of the filing fee. Tenant application Market rent
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord sought rent in excess of the market rent with the latest rent increase on 22 November 2022 from $950 to $1,250. Her evidence is that she had discussed her concerns over the high rent with [Owner 1] however did not make an application earlier because she is very busy.
In support of her application, she has provided screen shots of the following advertised 4 bedrooms properties: a. In Waterloo, at $795pwk. b. Woburn; $690. c. Stokes Valley; $750. d. NaeNae; $850. e. NaeNae; $650. f. Stokes Valley; $725.
There is no specific data held by Tenancy Services for 4-bedroomed homes in [Event location suppressed] however the following relates to 3-bedroom homes between 1 February 2024 and 31 July: 8 Paragraph 48 Lower Quartile $690 Median Rent $695 Upper Quartile $745
At the commencement of the tenancy the rent was $690. On 8 February 2022 it was increased to $750, then on 6 September 2022 further increased to $950. The $1,250 from November 2022 included the $200 paid for the dogs.
The property is currently marketed at $800 per week. [The property manager/s] oral evidence is that the market is different now from 2022 in that rents have dropped which reflects the current state of the economy. In 2022 there was an under-supply of rental stock he says and as such, at the time $1250 was appropriate. He says that as the property is large and has features consistent with homes that can be marketed at a higher rent such as an attached double garage and ensuite, $1,250, or $1,050 without the dog fees was fair.
In paragraphs 52 to 58 of the January decision I detailed the law9 on market rent. [The tenant/s] must therefore establish in evidence that the rent exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount.
In considering her application I must have regard to the general level of rent for comparable tenancies in the same or similar localities but am constrained to the evidence provided by the parties.
The District Court in Thai v Mahmood, DC Christchurch, CIV2003- 009-2542 stated “When considering claims that a rental being charged is too high, the first consideration is to assess the general level of rents for comparable tenants of comparable premises in similar locations. It is not open to the Tribunal to make a determination as to market rents having regard only to such matters as the tribunal considers relevant.”
Section 25(4) RTA provides that a market rent order may not take effect any earlier than the date of the application or any later than 30 days after the date of the order.
[The tenant/s] made her oral application at the first hearing on 16 January. I therefore assess the level of rent at that time because I cannot reduce the rent for the period prior to that.
$1,250 or even $1,050 is a large amount of money. This is a standard home in a good suburb but does not have any particularly special features. None of the ads [The tenant/s] provided have rents of anywhere near a similar value. None are in [Event location suppressed], but some are in better neighbourhoods, others in worse. The evidence is limited however on the amenities the houses provide. 9 Sections 25(1) and (3) of the RTA
There are currently two 4-bedroomed properties listed in [Event location suppressed], one being this property. One is listed for $750, and this one is for $800. There are a number of 3-bedroomed properties listed with the highest rental being $850 and that is for a very modern home.
Having assessed the evidence available to me, I am satisfied that $800 is the appropriate market rent for a property such as this and was so in January 2024. I place weight on the amount it is currently marketed for. There is no evidence before me that establishes that the market has changed so dramatically since January this year. Accordingly, I find that $1,050 ($1,250 minus the $200 for the dogs) exceeds that amount by a substantial amount.
I therefore direct that the rent for this property from 16 January to its conclusion on 26 May should have been $800 per week. The landlord is therefore to reimburse [The tenant/s] the amounts she has overpaid which is $250 per week. Suppression
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful. Both parties have been successful to an extent in their claims. Accordingly, I approve suppression orders in favour of both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4722591 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4722591 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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