What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4801417 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s proven claim totals $721.55, calculated per the table below.

How much money was awarded in case 4801417?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Nail Holes In Lounge Walls: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtain: $85.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $66.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4801417?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4801417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11172738-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4801417 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s proven claim totals $721.55, calculated per the table below.

How much money was awarded in case 4801417?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Nail Holes In Lounge Walls: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtain: $85.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $66.11 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4801417?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4801417?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11172738-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

100 Robinson Road, Whangarei Heads, RD 4, Whangarei Tenancy Tribunal Case 4801417 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4801417. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Nail holes in lounge walls	$350.00	Repairs: Nail holes in lounge walls
Replace curtain	$85.00	Replace curtain
Shower cleaning and carpet damage repair	$200.00	20. The amount claimed for repairing the carpet and cleaning (Ms Chang did both) is fair and reasonable.
Rubbish removal	$66.11	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

The tenancy ended on 11 January 2024.

The landlord filed this application on 7 February 2024.

A mediation took place on 27 March 2024. The dispute was not resolved at mediation and it was referred to the Tenancy Tribunal.

A hearing was scheduled to take place on 3 July 2024. That hearing was adjourned at the tenant’s request. The tenant wanted to file a cross-application.

The hearing was re-scheduled to take place on 4 December 2024.

Mr Haywood filed a cross-application on 3 December 2024.

The hearing for the landlord’s application went ahead on 4 December. Mr Peters (JS Management) and Ms Chang attended the hearing by phone. Mr Haywood attended in person at the Whangarei court.

I told the parties that the tenant’s application will be dealt with at a separate hearing.

The landlord’s application seeks the cost of repairing and painting the walls in the lounge ($2,760.00), replacement of a missing curtain ($85.00), shower cleaning and minor carpet repair ($200.00) and rubbish removal ($66.11). Nail holes in wall

Mr Peters said that: a. There were nail holes in the walls in the hallway at the start of this tenancy but none, or very few, in the lounge. b. The tenant hung numerous pictures in the lounge during the tenancy, using small (picture hanging) nails rather than ‘command hooks’. c. The landlord had the walls in the hallway and lounge repaired and painted at the end of the tenancy. The cost of this was $5,520.00 per an invoice from Ssun Ltd. The landlord is seeking half of this cost.

Mr Hayward said that: a. He and Ms Hopkins had permission to hang pictures. b. The pictures were up for the duration of the tenancy and the property manager did not raise any issues or concerns. c. There were existing holes in the walls in the hallway and in the lounge when they moved in. They utilised some of the existing holes in the lounge when they hung their pictures. d. The remedial cost claim is excessive.

I accept that putting a small nail into the wall is damage rather than wear and tear – it is caused by a single intentional action rather than “wear” through ordinary use. However, tenants can reasonably expect to be able to put pictures or artwork up in a tenanted property. This is often dealt with by way of clause in the tenancy agreement stipulating the use of command hooks (or similar) that do not leave a hole in the wall. In the absence of such a provision, there is an implied permission for the tenant to hang a reasonable number of pictures, using ‘normal’ means such as small picture hook nails.

The photographs and other evidence provided to me show that: a. Mr Haywood and Ms Hopkins had numerous artworks up on the walls in the lounge during their tenancy. As would be expected, the pictures are on the middle third of the walls. b. The final inspection report notes “minor pin marks” on the walls in the main lounge and “minor nail hook marks” in the smaller lounge. c. The small holes cannot be captured well in photographs. The most helpful photographs are the ones where the repairer has plastered over the holes in preparation for painting. d. Those photographs show plastered areas where there were clearly no pictures hung, such as near the bottom of the wall. It was reasonable and appropriate for the repairer to fix up all areas of minor damage, not just the nail holes, in preparation for painting. However, Mr Haywood is not liable for that part of the repair work.

Ms Chang purchased the property in 2021. She said that the paintwork was not brand new when she purchased, but the previous owner had done some renovation work a couple of years prior and that was her best guess as to when the walls were last painted. This means that the paint was approximately five years old at the end of this tenancy.

My findings are: a. I accept Mr Haywood’s statement that there were some nail holes in the lounge at the start of the tenancy and they used those existing holes for some of their pictures. Mr Haywood is not liable for repairing those existing holes. b. Mr Haywood is not liable for repairing other damage to the walls. c. The explicit consent to hanging pictures, and the absence of any specific requirement to use command hooks, amounted to permission to use standard picture hooks and small nails for a reasonable number of pictures. d. Mr Haywood had, I would say, a more than average number of pictures up in the lounge. e. Depreciation must apply to any painting cost for the small portion of damage that Mr Haywood is liable for, having regard to the factors above. f. My assessment is that Mr Haywood is liable to pay $350.00 for repairs and painting. Other costs

Mr Haywood acknowledged that he took the landlord’s curtain down because it was too small, and it went missing. The amount claimed for replacement is fair and reasonable.

There was a small amount of rubbish left outside. The amount claimed for removal is fair and reasonable.

Mr Peter’s photograph shows a small circular mark on the carpet.

The grout in the shower was dirty / mouldy. Ms Chang said that she was able to remove this using a cleaning product. Although Mr Haywood had professional cleaners clean the house at the end of his tenancy it seems that their services did not extent to cleaning the grout in the shower.

The amount claimed for repairing the carpet and cleaning (Ms Chang did both) is fair and reasonable.

The landlord has been successful in this application, and I must award the landlord the filing fee. Outcome

The proven claim totals $721.55.

I will not make a monetary order or release the bond until the tenant’s cross- application is heard and determined.

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4801417. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Nail holes in lounge walls	$350.00	Repairs: Nail holes in lounge walls
Replace curtain	$85.00	Replace curtain
Shower cleaning and carpet damage repair	$200.00	20. The amount claimed for repairing the carpet and cleaning (Ms Chang did both) is fair and reasonable.
Rubbish removal	$66.11	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

The tenancy ended on 11 January 2024.

The landlord filed this application on 7 February 2024.

A mediation took place on 27 March 2024. The dispute was not resolved at mediation and it was referred to the Tenancy Tribunal.

A hearing was scheduled to take place on 3 July 2024. That hearing was adjourned at the tenant’s request. The tenant wanted to file a cross-application.

The hearing was re-scheduled to take place on 4 December 2024.

Mr Haywood filed a cross-application on 3 December 2024.

The hearing for the landlord’s application went ahead on 4 December. Mr Peters (JS Management) and Ms Chang attended the hearing by phone. Mr Haywood attended in person at the Whangarei court.

I told the parties that the tenant’s application will be dealt with at a separate hearing.

Mr Haywood acknowledged that he took the landlord’s curtain down because it was too small, and it went missing. The amount claimed for replacement is fair and reasonable.

There was a small amount of rubbish left outside. The amount claimed for removal is fair and reasonable.

Mr Peter’s photograph shows a small circular mark on the carpet.

The amount claimed for repairing the carpet and cleaning (Ms Chang did both) is fair and reasonable.

The landlord has been successful in this application, and I must award the landlord the filing fee. Outcome

The proven claim totals $721.55.

I will not make a monetary order or release the bond until the tenant’s cross- application is heard and determined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4801417 — Property damage at 100 Robinson Road, Whangarei Heads, RD 4, Whangarei

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4801417 — Property damage at 100 Robinson Road, Whangarei Heads, RD 4, Whangarei

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions