What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4840580?

The tribunal order states: Judith Clare Williamson to pay Rural Tenancy Limited as agent for S Romeril

How much money was awarded in case 4840580?

Property Damage: $510.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4840580?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4840580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10269057-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4840580?

The tribunal order states: Judith Clare Williamson to pay Rural Tenancy Limited as agent for S Romeril

How much money was awarded in case 4840580?

Property Damage: $510.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $90.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4840580?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4840580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10269057-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Cooney Avenue, Darfield, Darfield 7510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4840580 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4840580 — net $600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$90.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$510.00	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$600.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$600.00

Order

Judith Clare Williamson to pay Rural Tenancy Limited as agent for S Romeril $600.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for the repair of damage are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6508560-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Rural Tenancy Limited as agent for S Romeril: $600.00 Judith Clare Williamson: $1,800.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended with her son Dean Williamson who gave evidence. Ms Smith represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a refund of her bond. The tenant’s application
In the application the tenant sought a work order and compensation of $200.00 for the inconvenience of a leaking shower for about 4 days, having to purchase rubbish bags, fixing a ceiling cover in the garage and exposed nails on the fence.
The tenancy was for newly built premises. It started on 20 October 2023 and ended on 14 February 2024, so it lasted just under 4 months.
I explained to the tenant that the Tribunal cannot make work orders when a tenancy has ended. She accepted that. She confirmed that she was only seeking a refund of her bond, nothing more. The landlord’s application
The landlord seeks compensation of $365.50 for cleaning spilt paint in the garage, rubbish removal and cleaning; $510.00 for changing the locks; and $3,363.75 for the lawns that were newly laid but require remediation because they have dried out, and for the replacement of 2 shrubs.

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 (RTA).
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The tenant complained that she was not provided with 3 Council rubbish bins. There was only 1 recycling bin and she had to buy Council approved bags for the rest of her rubbish.
The tenant accepted that she left the recycling bin full. She said she had nowhere to put it.
When a tenant fails to remove all rubbish, the landlord can charge for doing that. I find that the landlord’s charge of $90.00 for removing and disposing of the rubbish the tenant left at the premises is objectively reasonable. I have awarded that amount including GST, not with additional GST as it is compensatory only.
The tenant said she left the premises ‘spotless’. However, the photos the landlord produced in evidence show that some cleaning was required.
A tenant only needs to leave the premises reasonably clean, not clean to a state where a new tenancy can immediately begin.
I find that the tenant left the premises reasonably clean. Landlords must expect to have to so some cleaning between tenancies.
The landlord said that Mr Williamson only returned 1 key, not the 2 keys provided at the start of the tenancy.
Mr Williamson said he returned the 2 keys.
I find it probable that only 1 key was returned. The landlord produced photos of the keys supplied and returned. The landlord emailed the tenant and Mr Williamson about the failure to return all keys. The landlord’s emails record that several attempts were made to contact the tenant about the keys with no response. Mr Williamson’s response was vague. He said in an email As far as I’m aware all keys were returned.
Without all the keys returned it had to protect the new tenant by ensuring that another key was not in circulation.
The tenant is liable for the cost - $510.00 (invoice produced).

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.
Mr Williamson knocked a bucket of paint left behind by the painters when he was connecting the washing machine. The landlord has claimed $130.00 plus GST for removing the paint.
Although it is not uncommon for painters to leave behind paint in newly built premises, the landlord should have ensured that the paint was stored off-site (as part of giving the tenant vacant possession) or properly secured on-site.
Mr Williamson could not reasonably have foreseen that the lid on the paint pail was not secured when he was installing the washing machine. His action knocking over the paint pail was neither careless nor intentional, it was inadvertent.
I dismiss this aspect of the landlord’s claim for damage.
The landlord has claimed the cost of remediating the lawns, newly laid before the tenancy started. The lawns dried out during the summer period during which the tenancy was in place. In evidence Mr Williamson said that he watered them every second day.
This claim cannot succeed. First, the claim is based on a quotation only; the work has not been done. Second, no photos were produced showing the state of the lawns now. The tenancy ended almost 3 months ago. The lawns might be better now than then.
Third, when lawns require special care and that burden is placed on the tenant, the landlord should provide clear instruction about what is required and should monitor the lawns. Newly laid lawn requires care and attention that is not required of established lawns.
The landlord noticed the condition of the lawns in mid-January 2024 as it enquired whether the tenant required anything such as a sprinkler, noting the importance of watering.
I do not find that the tenants caused careless or intentional damage to the lawns. Without specific instructions abut caring for newly laid lawns I accept Mr Williamson’s evidence that he watered the lawns regularly, but they still dried out. I dismiss this claim.
The claim for the replacement of 2 shrubs is dismissed. Shrubs die, especially during a hot summer. Most, it seems, survived. The tenant did not carelessly or intentionally cause the shrubs to die. Result
The landlord’s claims for the repair of damage are dismissed.
The tenant will pay the landlord $90.00 as compensation for rubbish removal and $510.00 for lock/key replacement.
The landlord’s other compensation claims are dismissed.
The bond will be split between the parties - $600.00 to the landlord and $1,800.00 to the tenant.
No award is made of the filing fees. Neither party has been fully or mostly successful. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4840580 — net $600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$90.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$510.00	Lock/key replacement
Net award	$600.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$600.00

Order

Judith Clare Williamson to pay Rural Tenancy Limited as agent for S Romeril $600.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord’s claims for the repair of damage are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6508560-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Rural Tenancy Limited as agent for S Romeril: $600.00 Judith Clare Williamson: $1,800.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended with her son Dean Williamson who gave evidence. Ms Smith represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for a refund of her bond. The tenant’s application
In the application the tenant sought a work order and compensation of $200.00 for the inconvenience of a leaking shower for about 4 days, having to purchase rubbish bags, fixing a ceiling cover in the garage and exposed nails on the fence.
The tenancy was for newly built premises. It started on 20 October 2023 and ended on 14 February 2024, so it lasted just under 4 months.
I explained to the tenant that the Tribunal cannot make work orders when a tenancy has ended. She accepted that. She confirmed that she was only seeking a refund of her bond, nothing more. The landlord’s application
The landlord seeks compensation of $365.50 for cleaning spilt paint in the garage, rubbish removal and cleaning; $510.00 for changing the locks; and $3,363.75 for the lawns that were newly laid but require remediation because they have dried out, and for the replacement of 2 shrubs.

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 (RTA).
The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The tenant complained that she was not provided with 3 Council rubbish bins. There was only 1 recycling bin and she had to buy Council approved bags for the rest of her rubbish.
The tenant accepted that she left the recycling bin full. She said she had nowhere to put it.
When a tenant fails to remove all rubbish, the landlord can charge for doing that. I find that the landlord’s charge of $90.00 for removing and disposing of the rubbish the tenant left at the premises is objectively reasonable. I have awarded that amount including GST, not with additional GST as it is compensatory only.
The tenant said she left the premises ‘spotless’. However, the photos the landlord produced in evidence show that some cleaning was required.
A tenant only needs to leave the premises reasonably clean, not clean to a state where a new tenancy can immediately begin.
I find that the tenant left the premises reasonably clean. Landlords must expect to have to so some cleaning between tenancies.
The landlord said that Mr Williamson only returned 1 key, not the 2 keys provided at the start of the tenancy.
Mr Williamson said he returned the 2 keys.
I find it probable that only 1 key was returned. The landlord produced photos of the keys supplied and returned. The landlord emailed the tenant and Mr Williamson about the failure to return all keys. The landlord’s emails record that several attempts were made to contact the tenant about the keys with no response. Mr Williamson’s response was vague. He said in an email As far as I’m aware all keys were returned.
Without all the keys returned it had to protect the new tenant by ensuring that another key was not in circulation.
The tenant is liable for the cost - $510.00 (invoice produced).

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.
Mr Williamson knocked a bucket of paint left behind by the painters when he was connecting the washing machine. The landlord has claimed $130.00 plus GST for removing the paint.
Although it is not uncommon for painters to leave behind paint in newly built premises, the landlord should have ensured that the paint was stored off-site (as part of giving the tenant vacant possession) or properly secured on-site.
Mr Williamson could not reasonably have foreseen that the lid on the paint pail was not secured when he was installing the washing machine. His action knocking over the paint pail was neither careless nor intentional, it was inadvertent.
I dismiss this aspect of the landlord’s claim for damage.
The landlord has claimed the cost of remediating the lawns, newly laid before the tenancy started. The lawns dried out during the summer period during which the tenancy was in place. In evidence Mr Williamson said that he watered them every second day.
This claim cannot succeed. First, the claim is based on a quotation only; the work has not been done. Second, no photos were produced showing the state of the lawns now. The tenancy ended almost 3 months ago. The lawns might be better now than then.
Third, when lawns require special care and that burden is placed on the tenant, the landlord should provide clear instruction about what is required and should monitor the lawns. Newly laid lawn requires care and attention that is not required of established lawns.
The landlord noticed the condition of the lawns in mid-January 2024 as it enquired whether the tenant required anything such as a sprinkler, noting the importance of watering.
I do not find that the tenants caused careless or intentional damage to the lawns. Without specific instructions abut caring for newly laid lawns I accept Mr Williamson’s evidence that he watered the lawns regularly, but they still dried out. I dismiss this claim.
The claim for the replacement of 2 shrubs is dismissed. Shrubs die, especially during a hot summer. Most, it seems, survived. The tenant did not carelessly or intentionally cause the shrubs to die. Result
The landlord’s claims for the repair of damage are dismissed.
The tenant will pay the landlord $90.00 as compensation for rubbish removal and $510.00 for lock/key replacement.
The landlord’s other compensation claims are dismissed.
The bond will be split between the parties - $600.00 to the landlord and $1,800.00 to the tenant.
No award is made of the filing fees. Neither party has been fully or mostly successful. Name suppression
Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4840580 — Property damage at 24 Cooney Avenue, Darfield, Darfield 7510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4840580 — Property damage at 24 Cooney Avenue, Darfield, Darfield 7510

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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