What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4826479 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenants] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,430.00 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4826479?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $63.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $330.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826479?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826479?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10564043-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4826479 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenants] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,430.00 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4826479?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Lawn Mowing: $63.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $437.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $330.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826479?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826479?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10564043-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4826479 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4826479 — net $1,430.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairing wooden floors	$500.00	Repairing wooden floors
Repairs broken shelf	$437.00	Repairs broken shelf
Cleaning fly spots	$100.00	Cleaning fly spots
Lawn mowing	$63.00	Lawn mowing
Repairing deck scorch mark	$330.00	Repairing deck scorch mark
Net award	$1,430.00
Bond	$7,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,430.00

The landlords attended the hearing in person. The tenants attended by telephone.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The premises is a upmarket property in Saint Heliers. It is the landlords’ own cherished family home and they have maintained it to a high standard.

The tenancy began on 21 July 2021 and ended on 27 October 2023.

The tenants took good care of the premises. However, the parties have not been able to fully resolve the issue of the amount the tenants should contribute towards the landlords’ cost to repair some accidental damage to the premises.

During the tenancy, contractors delivering a refrigerator damaged the wooden floors in two places. The tenants had the floors repaired, but the landlords are dissatisfied with the repair work.

The landlords also consider the tenants have damaged the wooden floors in the living/dining area. The tenants maintain that any damage was pre-existing, and any damage they may have caused was no more than fair wear and tear.

Are the tenants liable for the cost of repairing damage to the premises?

The landlords claim compensation for: damage to the wooden floors in the entry hallway, the kitchen, and the dining/living area; a shelf broken by movers; and a brazier scorch mark on the deck.

The tenants consent to the anticipated costs of repairing the shelf and the scorch mark. An order is made for those. Legal principles

The landlords 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 tenants 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. 1 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B.

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). 2

If liability is proven, the Tribunal must take account of betterment and depreciation in calculating the landlords’ loss. The landlords 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. Discussion

The premises wooden floors are comprised of a variety of different wood types, possibly (from appearance) including Tawa or Matai. The flooring appears to be of solid wood construction rather than laminated. The flooring was probably renovated about seven-to-eight years ago.

There is no dispute that the kitchen and hallway damage, which the fridge delivery people caused, occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair were and tear.

The main dispute concerns damage to the living/dining area floors.

The tenants say they noticed the floor damage about five days after the tenancy began, on 26 July 2021. They took photographs of the damage to protect their position. They have submitted the photographs into evidence.

The landlords provided pre-tenancy photographs of the floors that do not show damage. They say they detected the damage on about 24 January 2022 and took photographs at the time. They have submitted those into evidence.

The landlords say, the damage they refer to is in a slightly different place to the damage shown in the tenants’ 26 July 2021 photographs. However, it was difficult to confirm the tenants’ response about the exact location of the damage because they were not present in the courtroom to sight the areas identified on the photographs and respond.

Among other photographs submitted, the tenants relied upon a pre-tenancy photograph (Ref 3) that does show pre-existing damage, and the landlords submitted post-tenancy photographs including an extreme close-up photograph showing etched-in scratches and indentations in the living room area floors. Conclusion 2 RTA, s 49B(3).

Having analysed all of the photographs and considered the parties’ submissions, I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the tenants damaged the flooring in the living/dining area beyond fair wear and tear.

The damage that has been highlighted before me is modest. It is of kind that in some photographs it will be invisible and in others it will look terrible. It depends on the lighting conditions, the angle, and the distance from which the particular photograph is taken. I am not confident to the level of moral certainty required that the landlords have discharged the onus they bear.

Therefore, the tenants are not liable for the living/dining area damage. The tenants are liable kitchen and entry areas damage. Assessment of quantum

The landlords’ financial loss is the two excesses of $1,250.00 they must contribute towards having the kitchen/dining/living area and the entrance hallway areas sanded and polyurethanes.

The landlords will also have to pay a $1,250.00 excess for another area of flooring that is damaged, which has no relation to the tenants.

The cost of redoing all of the premises’ flooring, including the bedrooms will be about $10,000.00 and the excesses will mean the landlords will be paying $3,750.00 towards that cost. $2,500.00 of the excesses relate to the kitchen area and entrance areas that the tenant’s contractors damaged.

The tenants say they spent about $2,000.00 on repairing the damage.

The photographs I have seen confirm that the floors do still have cosmetic damage even following the tenants’ repair. There is long crease in the front entrance flooring, and two gouge marks in the kitchen.

Overall, the landlords’ loss in respect to having to remediate the cosmetic damage is modest in the context of betterment especially. The landlords’ insurer has agreed to cover the cost of recoating the floors. The landlords will have the benefit of fully restored wooden floors throughout at about 38 per cent of cost. Put another way, the landlords receive a financial benefit of $6,250.00, and an amenity benefit of fully renovated natural wood flooring.

Nonetheless, the landlords will be having the floors done about seven or eight years earlier than otherwise might have been the case. They will also have to pay out $2,500.00. There is a lot of inconvenience involved in the polyurethaning process, such as having to vacate the premises for several days, which the landlords would have preferred to have avoided.

The landlords submit the Tribunal should order the tenants to reimburse them at least $1,500.00. The tenants submit the amount should be no more than $500.00.

I consider that $500.00 is an appropriate amount to order in all the circumstances. 3 Lawn mowing and fly spots

I order the tenants to pay for a lawn mow. The tenants moved out two weeks before the tenancy ended. The lawns were a tidy enough length when the tenants moved out but needed mowing again by the time the tenancy ended.

The landlords had the ceilings cleaned of fly spots before the tenancy began. The tenants left the premises clean but did not think to clean the ceilings. Tenants must only leave the premises reasonably clean. In the circumstances of this high quality home, I find that the duty extended to cleaning the ceiling of fly spots to a reasonable standard.

The Tribunal orders 50 per cent of the cost of cleaning the ceiling of fly spots after the tenancy ended. Non-publication

The landlords seek an order for non-publication of their names and identifying details.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 4

The landlords have substantially succeeded in the proceedings, and I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or otherwise justified.

The Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published. 3 The contractors who caused the floor damage should reimburse the tenants for this. 4 RTA, s 95A(1).

Publishing the tenants’ names may affect their ability to rent in New Zealand should they wish to in future. Having regard to the parties’ interests and to the public interest non-publication is warranted. The tenants were good tenants who did nothing wrong. This case arises only because the wooden flooring damage presented particularly thorny issues. Filing fee

Both parties having partly succeeded in their claims, no order is made to reimburse the filing fees.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4826479 — net $1,430.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairing wooden floors	$500.00	Repairing wooden floors
Repairs broken shelf	$437.00	Repairs broken shelf
Cleaning fly spots	$100.00	Cleaning fly spots
Lawn mowing	$63.00	Lawn mowing
Repairing deck scorch mark	$330.00	Repairing deck scorch mark
Net award	$1,430.00
Bond	$7,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,430.00