What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4804437?

The tribunal order states: Amanda and Alan Chadd to pay Red Chili Property Management Limited acting

How much money was awarded in case 4804437?

Lawns and Garden Work: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $328.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $570.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $6.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4804437?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4804437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10289383-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4804437?

The tribunal order states: Amanda and Alan Chadd to pay Red Chili Property Management Limited acting

How much money was awarded in case 4804437?

Lawns and Garden Work: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $328.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $570.96 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $6.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4804437?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4804437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10289383-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

36 Bonecrusher Street, Lincoln, Lincoln 7608 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4804437 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4804437 — net $2,056.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$328.57	Rent arrears
Water rates	$6.50	Water rates
Lawns and Garden work	$600.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Kitchen flooring insurance excess	$550.00	Repairs: Kitchen flooring insurance excess
Repairs: Estimate for damage beyond fair wear and tear (minimum charge	$570.96	Repairs: Estimate for damage beyond fair wear and tear (minimum charge
Net award	$2,056.03
Bond	$2,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,056.03

Order

Amanda and Alan Chadd to pay Red Chili Property Management Limited acting as agent for Hamish and Charlton Race $2,056.03 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 (6400064-015) immediately apportioned as follows: Red Chili Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Hamish & Charlton Race: $2,056.03 Amanda and Alan Chadd: $243.97

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Lowe and Ms Bell appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 13 November 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepted liability for these amounts at the hearing.

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 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 under section 49B(3)(a) 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).
The landlord provided a quote for garden work and photographs of the garden before and after the tenancy.
The tenants agreed that they had removed flaxes from the property during the tenant due to rats being attracted to them. They had replaced the flaxes at the end of the tenancy with what they thought was the same flax.
The landlord gave evidence that the flaxes had been replaced with unsuitable types of flax which would grow too large for the area.
The tenants agreed that they had installed planter boxes on the property, and these had not been removed at the end of the tenancy.
The quote for garden work also included amounts for general weeding and for replacement of hebes (six).
In the post tenancy photographs hebes can be clearly seen and no evidence was provided to explain why these plants had to be replaced.
The post tenancy photos show that the garden was otherwise left in a reasonably clean and tidy state as required by the Act.
The quoted amount for all garden work was $947.60. I have reduced the amount ordered to cover an estimated amount for replacement of the flaxes and removal of the garden boxes (and associated soil) only, being $600.00.
The landlord provided an email from an insurance property assessor. The context of the email is not entirely clear as the surrounding correspondence has not been supplied, but it provides for estimated repair costs for twelve areas of damage at the property. The total estimated repair cost comes to $7,720.00.
The landlord is claiming an insurance excess of $550.00 for each of these twelve areas of damage, totalling $6,600.00.
The tenants accepted liability for the insurance excess for damage to the kitchen flooring, being $550.00.
The tenants considered other damage to be fair wear and tear. In respect of the television brackets, they considered that they had repaired damage to the best of their ability.
Much of the damage is referred to in the email as “minor”. Nine of the remaining eleven items were costed by the assessor at the “minimum charge” of $570.96. This minimum charge presupposes that each repair would be carried out separately and that a minimum charge would apply to each. This would clearly not be the case.
It is my view that the actual cost of repairing all of the items identified would come to a sum far lower than the $6,600.00 claimed.
Quotations, estimates or invoices for the actual cost of the repairs were not provided.
Much of the damage referred to and shown in the photographs falls into the category of fair wear and tear.
The damage to the kitchen bench is not visible except in a very close up photo. It appears very minor damage. It was not picked up in the inspection about two weeks prior to the tenants moving. The tenants were not aware of it and the pre tenancy photos do not provide such a close up photograph of the bench.
I consider that it is not sufficiently clear that this damage occurred during the tenancy and, even if it did, I consider that such minor damage is fair wear and tear.
In three cases, I consider that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
These include the two areas where televisions have been attached to the wall and the brackets removed at the end of the tenancy leaving marks on the walls.
In each of the two rooms, the tenant has attempted to make good the repair, but the areas are still visible and undoubtedly require some minor work to be properly made right.
The other damage that I consider more than fair wear and tear is a screw hole in a narrow wall.
In two other cases, picture hook marks are referred to, but these are difficult to see in photographs and cannot be more than very minor.
As no actual costs for the repair of these items have been provided to prove the loss suffered, I can only estimate an amount to be paid to compensate the landlord.
I order the amount of the insurance company’s “minimum charge” as an estimated amount to cover the repairs to these areas, being $570.96.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Should a suppression order be made?

The landlords applied for a suppression order in their application.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlords have not been wholly or substantially successful in their claims and therefore no order for suppression has been made. Filing fee
As Red Chili Property Management Limited acting as agent for Hamish and Charlton Race has not been wholly successful with the claim I have not reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4804437 — net $2,056.03 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$328.57	Rent arrears
Water rates	$6.50	Water rates
Lawns and Garden work	$600.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Kitchen flooring insurance excess	$550.00	Repairs: Kitchen flooring insurance excess
Repairs: Estimate for damage beyond fair wear and tear (minimum charge	$570.96	Repairs: Estimate for damage beyond fair wear and tear (minimum charge
Net award	$2,056.03
Bond	$2,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,056.03

Order

Amanda and Alan Chadd to pay Red Chili Property Management Limited acting as agent for Hamish and Charlton Race $2,056.03 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 (6400064-015) immediately apportioned as follows: Red Chili Property Management Limited Acting Agent For Hamish & Charlton Race: $2,056.03 Amanda and Alan Chadd: $243.97

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Lowe and Ms Bell appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 13 November 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepted liability for these amounts at the hearing.

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 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 under section 49B(3)(a) 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).
The landlord provided a quote for garden work and photographs of the garden before and after the tenancy.
The tenants agreed that they had removed flaxes from the property during the tenant due to rats being attracted to them. They had replaced the flaxes at the end of the tenancy with what they thought was the same flax.
The landlord gave evidence that the flaxes had been replaced with unsuitable types of flax which would grow too large for the area.
The tenants agreed that they had installed planter boxes on the property, and these had not been removed at the end of the tenancy.
The quote for garden work also included amounts for general weeding and for replacement of hebes (six).
In the post tenancy photographs hebes can be clearly seen and no evidence was provided to explain why these plants had to be replaced.
The post tenancy photos show that the garden was otherwise left in a reasonably clean and tidy state as required by the Act.
The quoted amount for all garden work was $947.60. I have reduced the amount ordered to cover an estimated amount for replacement of the flaxes and removal of the garden boxes (and associated soil) only, being $600.00.
The landlord provided an email from an insurance property assessor. The context of the email is not entirely clear as the surrounding correspondence has not been supplied, but it provides for estimated repair costs for twelve areas of damage at the property. The total estimated repair cost comes to $7,720.00.
The landlord is claiming an insurance excess of $550.00 for each of these twelve areas of damage, totalling $6,600.00.
The tenants accepted liability for the insurance excess for damage to the kitchen flooring, being $550.00.
The tenants considered other damage to be fair wear and tear. In respect of the television brackets, they considered that they had repaired damage to the best of their ability.
Much of the damage is referred to in the email as “minor”. Nine of the remaining eleven items were costed by the assessor at the “minimum charge” of $570.96. This minimum charge presupposes that each repair would be carried out separately and that a minimum charge would apply to each. This would clearly not be the case.
It is my view that the actual cost of repairing all of the items identified would come to a sum far lower than the $6,600.00 claimed.
Quotations, estimates or invoices for the actual cost of the repairs were not provided.
Much of the damage referred to and shown in the photographs falls into the category of fair wear and tear.
The damage to the kitchen bench is not visible except in a very close up photo. It appears very minor damage. It was not picked up in the inspection about two weeks prior to the tenants moving. The tenants were not aware of it and the pre tenancy photos do not provide such a close up photograph of the bench.
I consider that it is not sufficiently clear that this damage occurred during the tenancy and, even if it did, I consider that such minor damage is fair wear and tear.
In three cases, I consider that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
These include the two areas where televisions have been attached to the wall and the brackets removed at the end of the tenancy leaving marks on the walls.
In each of the two rooms, the tenant has attempted to make good the repair, but the areas are still visible and undoubtedly require some minor work to be properly made right.
The other damage that I consider more than fair wear and tear is a screw hole in a narrow wall.
In two other cases, picture hook marks are referred to, but these are difficult to see in photographs and cannot be more than very minor.
As no actual costs for the repair of these items have been provided to prove the loss suffered, I can only estimate an amount to be paid to compensate the landlord.
I order the amount of the insurance company’s “minimum charge” as an estimated amount to cover the repairs to these areas, being $570.96.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Should a suppression order be made?

The landlords applied for a suppression order in their application.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlords have not been wholly or substantially successful in their claims and therefore no order for suppression has been made. Filing fee
As Red Chili Property Management Limited acting as agent for Hamish and Charlton Race has not been wholly successful with the claim I have not reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4804437 — Property damage at 36 Bonecrusher Street, Lincoln, Lincoln 7608

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4804437 — Property damage at 36 Bonecrusher Street, Lincoln, Lincoln 7608

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions