How much money was awarded in case 4773677?

Cleaning: $219.85 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; cost to professionally repaint upsta…: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $499.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773677?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773677?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10091038-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4773677?

Cleaning: $219.85 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; cost to professionally repaint upsta…: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $499.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773677?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773677?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10091038-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 2, 34 Taylors Avenue, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4773677 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4773677?

The tribunal order states: Vijayakumaran Munusamy and Vijayaletchumy Sigamani to pay Real Property

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4773677 — net $848.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$219.85	Cleaning
Repairs: cost to professionally repaint upstairs bedroom (10% of total to reflect depreciation	$109.25	Repairs: cost to professionally repaint upstairs bedroom (10% of total to reflect depreciation
Repairs: repainting interior smoke damage - paint cost only	$499.20	Repairs: repainting interior smoke damage - paint cost only
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$848.74
Bond	$1,290.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$848.74

Vijayakumaran Munusamy and Vijayaletchumy Sigamani to pay Real Property Management Limited as agent for Rentaplace Properties Ltd $848.74 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Vijayakumaran Munusamy and Vijayaletchumy Sigamani’s claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.

Real Property Management Limited as agent for Rentaplace Properties Ltd’s claims for carpet cleaning, rubbish removal and bin cleaning and curtain replacement are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,290.00 (3194831-020) immediately apportioned as follows: Real Property Management Limited as agent for Rentaplace Properties Ltd: $848.74 Vijayakumaran Munusamy and Vijayaletchumy Sigamani: $441.26

The application was part heard at that time as the tenant had come to Christchurch from Perth to appear in person.

The landlord had filed a cross application, but it had not been processed in time to be available at the initial hearing.

That part of the tenant’s claim in relation to the bond was delayed to be heard alongside the landlord’s cross application which was also in relation to the bond and compensation claims.

Reasons

Both parties attended each of the two hearings.

Ms Fantham attended for the landlord and Mr Munusamy attended for the tenant.

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 applied for exemplary damages for breach of healthy homes requirements and failure to maintain.

Many of the claims made by the tenant in this matter have arisen out of misunderstandings and miscommunication.

The tenant thought there should have been a joint pre-tenancy inspection completed.

Evidence provided by both parties shows that the landlord completed an inspection when the previous tenant left (a few days prior to this tenancy commencing on 31 July 2020) and provided this tenant with the report.

The tenant had some time to review the report and to let the landlord know if they wished to make any amendments. The tenant made two amendments by email on 5 August 2020, and these were accepted by the landlord.

I find that the evidence provided by the pre tenancy inspection report is reliable.

The tenant also expected that a joint inspection would take place before they vacated the property. This was not communicated to the landlord and the tenant left halfway through their final day as they were flying out to Perth to live.

When the tenant communicated that they were leaving the property at midday on the final day, the landlord replied, “Just make contact with Alex or myself when you are ready to drop the key off.” I consider that this response shows that the landlord was unaware that a joint inspection was expected and that the tenant was aware that no such inspection would take place on that date.

The landlord completed the post tenancy inspection without the tenant the following day as is their practise.

I find the evidence provided by the landlord in terms of the post-tenancy inspection to be reliable.

The tenant made serious accusations against the landlord in terms of falsifying evidence presented to the Tribunal. There was no evidence provided to support these claims and the Tribunal does not accept that the landlord falsified any evidence.

Significant oral and written evidence was submitted to the Tribunal in relation to these claims. I have reviewed and considered all the evidence provided and all of the notes taken at each hearing, but it has not been necessary to refer to all of that evidence in this decision.

Other matters were canvased at the hearings, but these matters did not relate directly to claims by either party. Although this information may have provided useful background, it does not affect the outcome and does not need to be referred to in this order.

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 and remove all rubbish under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.

The landlord provided photographs taken on the day after the tenancy which showed that the tenant had overlooked some aspects of the cleaning.

There was evidence given by both parties in relation to an unclean shower waste. The landlord provided evidence from the owner of the property where he said he had disposed of the waste and replaced it.

The landlord has not claimed the cost of the replacement waste, so I do not have to make any decision in this regard.

The claim for landlord’s costs for cleaning materials, being $111.58, was withdrawn at the hearing.

The landlord claimed for professional carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy. A photo was provided which showed a build-up of dust and fluff on the edges of the carpet in one area.

There was no suggestion that there were any stains which necessitated professional cleaning of the carpet. The evidence for professional carpet cleaning is insufficient to prove that the tenant should be liable for this cost and the claim (for $175) is dismissed.

The tenant is obliged under the Act and under this tenancy agreement to remove all rubbish from the property prior to departure. This included leaving council bins empty and clean.

The landlord provided photographs to show that the red and yellow council bins were full. There was no photo provided of the green bin.

The tenant provided his own evidence to show that he had arranged with a friend to have both full bins put out on the appropriate bin days. One bin was due to be put out on 15 December 2023 which is two days following the end of the tenancy and the other a week later. The tenant said that the green bin was empty before he left.

The tenant did not communicate this with the landlord at any stage during their post tenancy communications and the landlord had arranged for all three bins to be emptied.

I find that at least one bin was likely put out by the friend for council collection. I have no evidence from the landlord as to the state of the green bin.

The tenant had complained during the tenancy about other tenants using his bins.

The invoice for bin emptying was dated 15 January 2024. Given the time that has passed between the end of the tenancy and the date of emptying the bins, I consider it is likely that the friend put both bins out for council collection on the appropriate days, as agreed, and they were then used by others.

The tenant should have communicated his arrangement with the landlord but there is insufficient evidence before me to find the tenant liable for the cost of emptying the three bins. That claim for $102.61 is dismissed.

The amount ordered for additional cleaning, being $219.85 is 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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent under section 49B(3)(b) of the Act.

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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.

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).

At an inspection, towards the end of the tenancy, with both the landlord and owner present, the landlord noticed that there was significant discolouration to many of the interior walls of the property.

The landlord asked (on 9 November) that the tenant clean this damage to the walls in the kitchen, lounge and bedroom three with sugar soap. The tenant obtained the sugar soap and made an attempt to clean the walls as requested. The tenant did not, at that time, deny responsibility for the damage.

On 14 December, after the bond inspection, the landlord emailed the tenant to say that they appreciated that some attempt at cleaning had been made but, “[t]he walls and ceilings were still very grubby with smoke marks all throughout the house. The upstairs main bedroom walls were in a very bad condition [and] we are going to have to arrange a repaint of this room.”

As a painter was on site completing unrelated work, he was engaged to repaint this bedroom. The landlord is claiming 10 percent of the cost of this painting to take into account depreciation ($109.25 including GST).

At this stage the landlord thought walls and ceilings in other rooms would be able to be cleaned to a sufficient standard to make repainting unnecessary. However, it became apparent that this was not the case, and the landlord gave evidence that the owner repainted these surfaces himself.

No claim is made for the costs of the landlord’s labour. The cost of materials, being $499.20, is claimed.

The tenant claimed that the damage was not caused by smoke but was caused instead by water damage.

Given that the tenant had already made some attempt to clean the walls and had not denied responsibility then and, further, that the attempted cleaning had made some improvement, I do not consider that water damage can reasonably be considered to have caused the discolouration to the walls and ceilings.

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

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord claimed ten percent of the cost of replacement curtains stained due to smoke.

Some of the curtains were described in the ingoing report as having “some marks” and “minor marks”.

Over a three-year tenancy in a property such as this, some condensation damage is likely to occur. The photographs provided show such damage to the curtain linings. I consider that this damage can be described (given the length of the tenancy) as fair wear and tear.

There was no specific evidence of smoke damage to the curtains.

Given that the curtains had to be replaced due to condensation damage, I do not consider that the tenant should be liable for this cost and the claim for ten percent of the cost of replacement curtains is dismissed. Exemplary damages

Vijayakumaran Munusamy and Vijayaletchumy Sigamani claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Act.

Under section 45, a landlord must, amongst other things, provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 under section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A of the Act.

The tenants further claim that the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Act, which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.

All private rentals must comply with HHS within 90 days of any new or renewed tenancy after 1 July 2021, with all private rentals complying by 1 July 2024.

The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains. The Standard requires a ground moisture barrier when there is an enclosed subfloor space.

The HHS provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00 under section 45(1A) of the Act.

Exemplary damages designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.

Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the Court said this: In considering whether an order of exemplary damages should be made, the Tribunal must first look at the intention of the person against whom the order is sought. As the Tribunal in Chief Executive, ex parte Edmondson v Walls TT548/92 said: Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the threshold question for the Tribunal to answer is whether the unlawful act has been committed ‘intentionally’. In my view negligence does not equate to intention, and for the Tribunal to be satisfied that a party has ‘intentionally’ committed an unlawful act evidence must exist which would justify the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: i. The intention of the person; ii. The effect of the unlawful act; iii. The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and iv. The public interest.

The tenant gave evidence that the landlord had failed to repair or replace items in a timely manner.

Both parties agreed that the tenant preferred to disclose required maintenance items in person at inspections rather than via the on-line portal provided for this purpose.

The landlord accepted that the property is reasonably old and has signs of historical water damage.

The tenant claimed that the roof leaked badly throughout the tenancy but there is no evidence to support this, and the landlord denied it.

One roof leak was noted and had been repaired with a delay of over five weeks. The delay was due to the tenant having covid and not responding to multiple requests for access.

The landlord gave evidence that the roof was water blasted after the tenancy ended. An email from the relevant company states that the roof space was checked for leaks both before and after the water blasting and no signs of any leaks were detected.

The landlord provided a copy of the maintenance records in relation to the property. Many maintenance items were recorded, and most were dealt with in a timely way.

The tenant reported that some oven elements had stopped working and an assessment was made by the landlord which determined that it was not economic to repair.

A new oven was purchased and paid for, including costs of delivery and installation.

The landlord believed that the oven had been delivered to the property and installed.

Sometime later, the tenant advised that they were still waiting for the replacement oven. The landlord made inquiries and was told that the oven had not been in stock at the time it was purchased and had been ordered.

This was the first indication that the landlord had to suggest the oven had not been replaced. After chasing it up, it was eventually delivered and installed.

This (brand new) oven suffered the same problem in terms of the elements failing. There was some delay in this repair as it was pursued under the warranty and the repair timeframe was outside the landlord’s control.

The landlord gave evidence that the same high heat cooking that can cause smoke damage to walls and ceilings can also cause oven elements to fail.

The electrical switchboards in all three (adjoining) units were upgraded at the same time. This was non-urgent work and instigated by the landlord rather than requested by the tenant. There were some delays in its completion due to third party involvement.

The landlord also accepted that some other non-urgent electrical work was not competed in as timely a way as it might have been. The landlord said this was because their electrician was suffering a personal tragedy at the time, and they did not want to rush him in those circumstances.

I find that there were some failures on the part of the landlord to ensure that repairs were completed in a timely way.

I find that the failure to complete minor electrical work was intentional but that it would not be just to award exemplary damages having regard to the factors outlined in 67 above.

I find that the other failures were not intentional and cannot lead to exemplary damages.

In relation to the claim for breach of HHS, the tenancy began prior to the standards taking effect. During the tenancy, the property was assessed, and the landlord provided the report to show that it complied with the standards. The initial report provided was dated 29 May 2020 and it was revised on 2 July 2021.

There is nothing before the Tribunal to prove that these reports are incorrect in any way.

I find that there is no proven unlawful act in relation to Healthy Homes Standards. Therefore, no damages can or should be awarded. Filing fee

As the landlord has partly succeeded with their claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4773677 — net $848.74 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$219.85	Cleaning
Repairs: cost to professionally repaint upstairs bedroom (10% of total to reflect depreciation	$109.25	Repairs: cost to professionally repaint upstairs bedroom (10% of total to reflect depreciation
Repairs: repainting interior smoke damage - paint cost only	$499.20	Repairs: repainting interior smoke damage - paint cost only
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$848.74
Bond	$1,290.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$848.74