What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4769299 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4769299?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $542.23 awarded to tenant; Bench Top: $196.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4769299?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4769299?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10011226-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4769299 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4769299?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $542.23 awarded to tenant; Bench Top: $196.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4769299?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4769299?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10011226-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

161 Rimu Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4769299 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

161 Rimu Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4769299 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4769299 — net $166.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$180.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Bench top	$196.00		Repairs: Bench top
Compensation		$542.23	Compensation
Total award	$376.00	$542.23
Net award		$166.23
Bond		$2,880.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$166.23

Claims and awards for application 4769299 — net $166.23 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: Bench top

Amount: $196.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Bench top

Compensation

Amount: $542.23
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Total award

Landlord $376.00 · Tenant $542.23

Net award

Tenant $166.23

Bond

Tenant $2,880.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $166.23

Dismissed claims

Property Damage

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $166.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1] appeared on behalf of the other tenants.
The tenant applied for a refund of the bond and reimbursement for repairs to a security alarm.
The landlord filed a late cross application with a large amount of evidence that was not numbered or indexed. Time was given for the landlord to organise their evidence. They sought compensation for cleaning and damages.
Both parties sought reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant was given the opportunity to have time to assess the landlord’s cross application and decided to continue with the hearing as the information related to the claims that he had filed and wanted determined.

Is the landlord responsible for the repair to the security system?

The tenant claimed for reimbursement for repairs to a security system at the premises. An invoice from [Electrician 1] for $542.23 was provided.
A landlord must provide and maintain a premises in reasonable state of repair. See section 451(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA.
The premises had a security system, but the tenant never received the code so was unable to use it. There was also no master pin so when the alarm was accidentally started by a child at the premises the landlord was unable to provide codes to override it. The alarm continued until the battery was removed. It then required repair.
The landlord said that they were not the first to manage the premises and have never had the security pin to give to the tenant. They confirmed that they agreed for the tenant to repair the alarm by returning it to the way it was.
When the landlord received the invoice, she obtained a quote from the electrical repairer that they used, [Electrician 2], and this came back as $153.53.
A closer comparison of the invoices showed that [Electrician 1]’s invoice was for more work but at a higher charge out rate. The landlord said that she was told they usually have a lower charge out rate, but no evidence was provided supporting this.
The landlord shall compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where- i. the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and... is otherwise serious and urgent; ii. and the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of the disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so. See section 45(1)(d) RTA.
I find that the tenant informed the landlord of the need for the repair, and they agreed that the tenant could repair it. There was no evidence provided that it was damaged due to a breach by the tenant, and it initially was an urgent repair as the alarm did not stop and was very loud.
The alarm was repaired to a working state which was important for the tenants at the premises. The landlord said that she only said it could be repaired ‘to the way it was’, which was not defined by her. Prior to the repair it was unable to be used so these were not clear instructions.
I find that the tenant complied with the requirements of the RTA and the amount claimed for repairs to the security system is reimbursed to the tenant.

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 claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenancy ended on 5 December 2023 and the landlord gave the tenant an opportunity to return to the premises to finish the cleaning. A list of what was to be cleaned was provided.
The tenant returned to find the landlord and people bringing furniture into the premises. The tenant finished the cleaning as instructed.
When the landlord inspected the premises the following day, she believed that the standard of cleaning was not reasonable and instructed a cleaning company to finish cleaning the premises. The landlord provided quotes from more expensive cleaners and but chose a more reasonably priced one.
The premise is 2 storied, with five bedrooms, two separate living areas and two separate bathrooms as well as a kitchen area.
The evidence provided by the landlord to support their cleaning claim was three or four small areas on the floor that required sweeping or cleaning, some windowsills that need wiping and some marks on some walls.
The evidence provided by the landlord in support of their claim did not reflect the amount claimed for cleaning and the amount awarded is reduced reflecting this.
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. 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the landlord claimed that the drawer in the bathroom was damaged by excess water and water not being wiped from the area and damage to the kitchen bench top due to discoloration.
The landlord provided pre inspection photos of the drawer in the bathroom which had a crack running along the length of the top. The crack was small and by the end of the tenancy the wood inside the drawer had expanded and the crack was larger. Photos of the side of the bathroom vanity swollen with water damage was also provided. No pre tenancy photos of the side of the vanity were available.
During the tenancy the landlord asked the tenants to keep the water off the vanity and wipe down after use as water should not be on the vanity. This was to prevent further damage. The landlord said that during inspection she noted there was still water on the vanity bench top.
The tenant said that the crack was there at the beginning of the tenancy and that once a crack appears in a bathroom drawer any water that enters will cause the wood to swell causing more damage. He claimed he was not liable for this damage because it existed at the start of the tenancy.
A landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. See section 45 of the RTA. It is not disputed that the vanity was damaged prior to the tenancy beginning. The landlord has noticed the swelling of the drawer on the first inspection and notified the tenants on 19 October 2023 of her concern about it, telling the tenants that they would be liable for returning it to the original condition.
It is reasonable to expect that a bathroom vanity would have water in it and on it. The top of a draw is where any water would drip over and be caught. I find that there was no evidence of excessive use, there was only two people using this bathroom. I find that the tenant’s behaviour does not fall into the categories of intentional or careless damage. I find that this accidental damage because the normal use of the vanity exacerbated an already damaged unit.
It was not established that the damage to the side of the hand basin occurred during this tenancy because no pre tenancy photos of this area were provided.
The claim for damage to the bathroom vanity is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for damages to the kitchen bench top providing pre and post tenancy inspection photos. Both sets of photos showed some mild discoloration in the bench top stop. On the pre inspection report and it was noted that there was “A small piece of bench top looks like discoloured (right from sink).”
It is the tenants claim that the bench was already discoloured in this area. He also said that he was trained as a chef and therefore used cutting boards for preparing meals disputing that the bench top was stained by food preparation.
The post tenancy evidence provided show the bench top had a reddish tinge in the corner. It was not established that there was a substantial area that required cleaning.
The tenant said that the bench top repair person initially did not notice any stain and had to be redirected and required to return to the premises to remedy this by the landlord. The landlord agreed and said that the tenant had sent the repair person to another repair issue that they did not claim.
Because there is some evidence of discolouration a smaller award is made for the repair of that area. The evidence provided did not support the claim for a larger area to be cleaned.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because [The tenant/s] have not been wholly successful with their claims, the filing fee is not reimbursed.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4769299 — net $166.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$180.00		Cleaning
Repairs: Bench top	$196.00		Repairs: Bench top
Compensation		$542.23	Compensation
Total award	$376.00	$542.23
Net award		$166.23
Bond		$2,880.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$166.23

Claims and awards for application 4769299 — net $166.23 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $180.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Repairs: Bench top

Amount: $196.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Bench top

Compensation

Amount: $542.23
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Compensation

Total award

Landlord $376.00 · Tenant $542.23

Net award

Tenant $166.23

Bond

Tenant $2,880.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $166.23

Dismissed claims

Property Damage

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $166.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Tenant 1] appeared on behalf of the other tenants.
The tenant applied for a refund of the bond and reimbursement for repairs to a security alarm.
The landlord filed a late cross application with a large amount of evidence that was not numbered or indexed. Time was given for the landlord to organise their evidence. They sought compensation for cleaning and damages.
Both parties sought reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant was given the opportunity to have time to assess the landlord’s cross application and decided to continue with the hearing as the information related to the claims that he had filed and wanted determined.

Is the landlord responsible for the repair to the security system?

The tenant claimed for reimbursement for repairs to a security system at the premises. An invoice from [Electrician 1] for $542.23 was provided.
A landlord must provide and maintain a premises in reasonable state of repair. See section 451(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA.
The premises had a security system, but the tenant never received the code so was unable to use it. There was also no master pin so when the alarm was accidentally started by a child at the premises the landlord was unable to provide codes to override it. The alarm continued until the battery was removed. It then required repair.
The landlord said that they were not the first to manage the premises and have never had the security pin to give to the tenant. They confirmed that they agreed for the tenant to repair the alarm by returning it to the way it was.
When the landlord received the invoice, she obtained a quote from the electrical repairer that they used, [Electrician 2], and this came back as $153.53.
A closer comparison of the invoices showed that [Electrician 1]’s invoice was for more work but at a higher charge out rate. The landlord said that she was told they usually have a lower charge out rate, but no evidence was provided supporting this.
The landlord shall compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where- i. the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and... is otherwise serious and urgent; ii. and the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of the disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so. See section 45(1)(d) RTA.
I find that the tenant informed the landlord of the need for the repair, and they agreed that the tenant could repair it. There was no evidence provided that it was damaged due to a breach by the tenant, and it initially was an urgent repair as the alarm did not stop and was very loud.
The alarm was repaired to a working state which was important for the tenants at the premises. The landlord said that she only said it could be repaired ‘to the way it was’, which was not defined by her. Prior to the repair it was unable to be used so these were not clear instructions.
I find that the tenant complied with the requirements of the RTA and the amount claimed for repairs to the security system is reimbursed to the tenant.

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 claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenancy ended on 5 December 2023 and the landlord gave the tenant an opportunity to return to the premises to finish the cleaning. A list of what was to be cleaned was provided.
The tenant returned to find the landlord and people bringing furniture into the premises. The tenant finished the cleaning as instructed.
When the landlord inspected the premises the following day, she believed that the standard of cleaning was not reasonable and instructed a cleaning company to finish cleaning the premises. The landlord provided quotes from more expensive cleaners and but chose a more reasonably priced one.
The premise is 2 storied, with five bedrooms, two separate living areas and two separate bathrooms as well as a kitchen area.
The evidence provided by the landlord to support their cleaning claim was three or four small areas on the floor that required sweeping or cleaning, some windowsills that need wiping and some marks on some walls.
The evidence provided by the landlord in support of their claim did not reflect the amount claimed for cleaning and the amount awarded is reduced reflecting this.
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. 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the landlord claimed that the drawer in the bathroom was damaged by excess water and water not being wiped from the area and damage to the kitchen bench top due to discoloration.
The landlord provided pre inspection photos of the drawer in the bathroom which had a crack running along the length of the top. The crack was small and by the end of the tenancy the wood inside the drawer had expanded and the crack was larger. Photos of the side of the bathroom vanity swollen with water damage was also provided. No pre tenancy photos of the side of the vanity were available.
During the tenancy the landlord asked the tenants to keep the water off the vanity and wipe down after use as water should not be on the vanity. This was to prevent further damage. The landlord said that during inspection she noted there was still water on the vanity bench top.
The tenant said that the crack was there at the beginning of the tenancy and that once a crack appears in a bathroom drawer any water that enters will cause the wood to swell causing more damage. He claimed he was not liable for this damage because it existed at the start of the tenancy.
A landlord is required to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. See section 45 of the RTA. It is not disputed that the vanity was damaged prior to the tenancy beginning. The landlord has noticed the swelling of the drawer on the first inspection and notified the tenants on 19 October 2023 of her concern about it, telling the tenants that they would be liable for returning it to the original condition.
It is reasonable to expect that a bathroom vanity would have water in it and on it. The top of a draw is where any water would drip over and be caught. I find that there was no evidence of excessive use, there was only two people using this bathroom. I find that the tenant’s behaviour does not fall into the categories of intentional or careless damage. I find that this accidental damage because the normal use of the vanity exacerbated an already damaged unit.
It was not established that the damage to the side of the hand basin occurred during this tenancy because no pre tenancy photos of this area were provided.
The claim for damage to the bathroom vanity is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for damages to the kitchen bench top providing pre and post tenancy inspection photos. Both sets of photos showed some mild discoloration in the bench top stop. On the pre inspection report and it was noted that there was “A small piece of bench top looks like discoloured (right from sink).”
It is the tenants claim that the bench was already discoloured in this area. He also said that he was trained as a chef and therefore used cutting boards for preparing meals disputing that the bench top was stained by food preparation.
The post tenancy evidence provided show the bench top had a reddish tinge in the corner. It was not established that there was a substantial area that required cleaning.
The tenant said that the bench top repair person initially did not notice any stain and had to be redirected and required to return to the premises to remedy this by the landlord. The landlord agreed and said that the tenant had sent the repair person to another repair issue that they did not claim.
Because there is some evidence of discolouration a smaller award is made for the repair of that area. The evidence provided did not support the claim for a larger area to be cleaned.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because [The tenant/s] have not been wholly successful with their claims, the filing fee is not reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4769299 — Property damage at 161 Rimu Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4769299 — Property damage at 161 Rimu Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord responsible for the repair to the security system?

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

Is the landlord responsible for the repair to the security system?

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