What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4776901?

The tribunal order states: Hamish Grotrian must pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4776901?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $744.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776901?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10292313-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4776901?

The tribunal order states: Hamish Grotrian must pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4776901?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $744.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776901?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10292313-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Thornton Road, Milford, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4776901 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4776901 — net $1,264.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$744.44	Water rates
Repairs	$500.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,264.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,264.88

Order

Hamish Grotrian must pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Pearl Jyiu Holdings Ltd $1,264.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 30 November 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants accept the outstanding amount for water.
This claim is proven.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenancy ended on 30 November 2023 and exit photographs were taken on 4 December 2023. The landlord claims that the kitchen and bathroom needed cleaning. Photographs provided do not show the state of these two rooms at the conclusion of the tenancy. The tenants state that they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy and say that they actually improved the condition of the property overall.
A tenant is only required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord has not provided exit photographs of the kitchen and bathroom. There is also no invoice for rubbish removal provided with the application. Because of this I cannot be satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for these two claims.
Accordingly, the claims for cleaning and rubbish removal are dismissed.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 landlord claims that they had to replace the toilet which the tenant had painted gold. They also say they had to replace the toilet seat of the other toilet which the tenant had painted black along with repairs to the walls and front door. The landlord provided photographic evidence in support of this.
The landlord also provided exit photographs confirming attempts by the tenant to repair holes in the walls and door. I have sighted the initial inspection report dated 5 December 2022 along with the entry inspection photographs. The inspection checklist confirms the overall state of the inside of the property to be in an acceptable condition.
It would appear from this photographic evidence that the interior of the premises were in a reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy. The tenants dispute this saying that the walls had holes in them when they moved in. They say that they patched and repaired most of these themselves. The tenants also say that the walls had holes in them and exposed electrical wires from the previous tenant. They patched and repaired most of these. They also repaired the dents made by their furniture and painted extensively throughout the property at their own expense.
I have also noted the additional clause in the Tenancy Agreement (clause 13) which states that “the landlord accepts the tenant can apply new paint and finishes and fixtures to upgrade the buildings and surrounding structures”.
The landlord has provided an invoice from Bamboo Tea and Decorating dated 11 December 2023. In my view the evidence filed by the landlord, especially taking into account the additional clause, does not support the claim of $1782.50. I do find however that the landlord was required to undertake a number of repairs following the end of this tenancy. These repairs included holes in walls and repairs to the front door. These repairs did not relate to fair wear and tear. It is also arguable whether upgrading buildings and surrounding structures includes allowing the tenant to paint a toilet gold.
Accordingly, I find that it is appropriate to allow the landlord’s invoice from Bamboo Tea and Decorating Limited although I award a reduced amount of $500.00 which reflects some of the the repairs which the landlord had to undertake. The evidence provided with the application does not support the full amount claimed.
The reduced amount ordered is 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.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that they will withdraw the claim relating to the swimming pool.
Because Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Pearl Jyiu Holdings Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4776901 — net $1,264.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$744.44	Water rates
Repairs	$500.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,264.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,264.88

Order

Hamish Grotrian must pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Pearl Jyiu Holdings Ltd $1,264.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 30 November 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenants accept the outstanding amount for water.
This claim is proven.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenancy ended on 30 November 2023 and exit photographs were taken on 4 December 2023. The landlord claims that the kitchen and bathroom needed cleaning. Photographs provided do not show the state of these two rooms at the conclusion of the tenancy. The tenants state that they left the premises reasonably clean and tidy and say that they actually improved the condition of the property overall.
A tenant is only required to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord has not provided exit photographs of the kitchen and bathroom. There is also no invoice for rubbish removal provided with the application. Because of this I cannot be satisfied that the tenant should be responsible for these two claims.
Accordingly, the claims for cleaning and rubbish removal are dismissed.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 landlord claims that they had to replace the toilet which the tenant had painted gold. They also say they had to replace the toilet seat of the other toilet which the tenant had painted black along with repairs to the walls and front door. The landlord provided photographic evidence in support of this.
The landlord also provided exit photographs confirming attempts by the tenant to repair holes in the walls and door. I have sighted the initial inspection report dated 5 December 2022 along with the entry inspection photographs. The inspection checklist confirms the overall state of the inside of the property to be in an acceptable condition.
It would appear from this photographic evidence that the interior of the premises were in a reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy. The tenants dispute this saying that the walls had holes in them when they moved in. They say that they patched and repaired most of these themselves. The tenants also say that the walls had holes in them and exposed electrical wires from the previous tenant. They patched and repaired most of these. They also repaired the dents made by their furniture and painted extensively throughout the property at their own expense.
I have also noted the additional clause in the Tenancy Agreement (clause 13) which states that “the landlord accepts the tenant can apply new paint and finishes and fixtures to upgrade the buildings and surrounding structures”.
The landlord has provided an invoice from Bamboo Tea and Decorating dated 11 December 2023. In my view the evidence filed by the landlord, especially taking into account the additional clause, does not support the claim of $1782.50. I do find however that the landlord was required to undertake a number of repairs following the end of this tenancy. These repairs included holes in walls and repairs to the front door. These repairs did not relate to fair wear and tear. It is also arguable whether upgrading buildings and surrounding structures includes allowing the tenant to paint a toilet gold.
Accordingly, I find that it is appropriate to allow the landlord’s invoice from Bamboo Tea and Decorating Limited although I award a reduced amount of $500.00 which reflects some of the the repairs which the landlord had to undertake. The evidence provided with the application does not support the full amount claimed.
The reduced amount ordered is 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.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that they will withdraw the claim relating to the swimming pool.
Because Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Pearl Jyiu Holdings Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776901 — Property damage at 2 Thornton Road, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776901 — Property damage at 2 Thornton Road, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions