What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4842700 about?

The tribunal order states: 2. Chenell Parata to pay [The landlord/s] $1,521.53 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4842700?

Cleaning: $632.59 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $138.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842700?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842700?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10344637-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4842700 about?

The tribunal order states: 2. Chenell Parata to pay [The landlord/s] $1,521.53 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4842700?

Cleaning: $632.59 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $138.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4842700?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4842700?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10344637-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4842700 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842700 — net $1,521.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$632.59	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$80.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Plaster & paint work; kitchen cupboard, front door, replace lightbulb;remove drawings on panel heater	$650.00	Repairs: Plaster & paint work; kitchen cupboard, front door, replace lightbulb;remove drawings on panel heater
Rubbish removal	$138.50	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,521.53
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,521.53

Chenell Parata to pay [The landlord/s] $1,521.53 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The claim for cleaning of $300 is withdrawn at the request of the landlord.

All other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,521.53 Chenell Parata: $678.47

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Mr Bentley representing the landlord.

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

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. General cleaning and carpet cleaning

The landlord withdrew its claim for general cleaning of the premises, which I find from the photos were left reasonably clean and tidy except for the carpet.

In relation to the carpet, the landlord produced photos of the carpet taken when the tenancy started on 1 February 2022 and photos taken on 16 January 2024, two days after the tenancy ended on 14 January 2024. While the carpet was not in perfect condition at the start of the tenancy, there was extensive, bad staining throughout the premises by the end of the tenancy. The landlord seeks reimbursement of the carpet cleaning cost they incurred of $632.59.

The tenant acknowledges responsibility for red carpet stains in the lounge but otherwise says she was shocked by the landlords’ photos and does not believe the stains shown in their photos were present at the end of the tenancy on 14 January. She produced one photo of the carpet she took at the start of the tenancy, but this only shows a patched piece of carpet and no stains. She also produced a video of the premises taken on 13 January, the day before the tenancy ended. She claims that the carpets are not as stained as shown in the landlord’s photos taken a few days later. However, after reviewing the tenant’s video, there are stains present in some of the footage, although most of the footage does not adequately show the condition of the carpet.

After carefully considering the available evidence, I find that the carpet stains likely occurred during the tenancy and the tenant is responsible for the costs. Rubbish removal

The landlord claims that there were several items left at the property including a mattress, some furniture, and some children’s toys which had to cleared and taken to the landfill, as shown in photos they took at the end of the tenancy showing the location of those items. They seek $150 plus GST for the work.

The tenant provided evidence that she paid for a skip bin at the end of the tenancy for various items to be disposed of including some of the furniture shown sitting near the carport in the landlord’s photos. However, she had vacated the property before the skip bin was collected. Therefore, she does not know why items she put in the skip bin were not taken away. She suspects that neighbours might’ve removed the items to keep and then changed their minds. Mr Bentley noted that if the skip bin was too full, the contractor may’ve removed any excess items. While, the tenant obviously tried to do the right thing and remove all her belongings, unfortunately, I must find her responsible for these items left behind because she was not present to check that they were collected by the skip bin company.

The tenant also says the mattress shown in her carport was not there when she left and does not belong to her. She says it had been in the neighbour’s carport. Again, she suspects that someone moved it there without her knowledge. While there is no supporting evidence such as her own photos showing what was left at the property, I am inclined to accept her evidence about the mattress.

The tenant acknowledges that she left six chairs at the premises for her neighbours and it appears that they didn’t take them. Therefore, the landlord had to dispose of them. This is the tenant’s responsibility.

Finally, the tenant says the toys shown in the yard were left there by neighbouring tenants before her tenancy began and that is why she left them. There is no evidence that she advised the landlord that the toys were there at the start of the tenancy and asked for them to be removed. Therefore, I find that she is responsible for their removal at the end of the tenancy.

I have slightly reduced the amount sought by the landlord for rubbish removal on the basis that the mattress did not belong to her and was not her responsibility to dispose. Lock replacement

The landlord says the tenant did not return the keys and the locks had to be changed for which they seek reimbursement of $159.67.

The tenant says that she had not received instructions about where to return the keys prior to the tenancy ending. However, she returned the keys to the landlord three days after the tenancy ended by delivering them to the landlord’s office and handing them to the office manager. Mr Bentley could not say when the locks were changed but maintains that as the keys were not handed back on the last day of the tenancy, the landlord was entitled to change the locks. Given that the post-inspection photos are dated 16 January 2024, the locks were likely changed on or before that date. In the circumstances, Mr Bentley said he would agree to reduce the claim by half. I consider that is fair and have reduced the claim accordingly.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: One lightbulb in the bathroom was missing. The cost to replace it is included in a global invoice for various damages which I consider further below.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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 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. The landlord’s insurance excess in this case is $500.

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 says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Curtains were stained and required replacement; there were multiple holes in the walls throughout the property which the tenant plastered. However, the plaster still needed sanding, some re-plastering and painting; a kitchen cupboard had come off its hinges and the hinges were missing; the back door was damaged, there were drawings on panel heaters in the house.

The tenant acknowledged some of the damage but said she did not know about the back door. She also alleges the curtains were stained because of mould at the property for which she says the landlord was responsible. She produced an email she sent the landlord on 2 May 2023 complaining about mould. However, she did not lodge any claim against the landlord regarding mould at the premises. Therefore, the presence and cause of any mould at the premises is not an issue before me for determination.

After considering all the evidence, I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage, which was likely caused carelessly.

The landlord produced one invoice to fix all the items. The amounts shown on the invoice for labour and materials are not itemised. Mr Bentley thinks it likely that they have only claimed plaster and paint materials, not curtains, nor replacement of one light bulb. However, I cannot be certain about that when the materials are not itemised.

Overall, I consider the amounts claimed are reasonable. However, I am reducing the claim on the basis that Mr Bentley said the curtains were at least 15 years old. Therefore, any amount included for curtains should be fully depreciated. Also, the same hourly rate for plastering and paintwork has been applied to work replacing curtains and a lightbulb which is not reasonable. I have reduced the claim so that it represents a reasonable amount for the work.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4842700 — net $1,521.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$632.59	Carpet Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$80.00	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Plaster & paint work; kitchen cupboard, front door, replace lightbulb;remove drawings on panel heater	$650.00	Repairs: Plaster & paint work; kitchen cupboard, front door, replace lightbulb;remove drawings on panel heater
Rubbish removal	$138.50	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,521.53
Bond	$2,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,521.53

Chenell Parata to pay [The landlord/s] $1,521.53 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The claim for cleaning of $300 is withdrawn at the request of the landlord.

All other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,521.53 Chenell Parata: $678.47

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Mr Bentley representing the landlord.

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

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The landlord withdrew its claim for general cleaning of the premises, which I find from the photos were left reasonably clean and tidy except for the carpet.

After carefully considering the available evidence, I find that the carpet stains likely occurred during the tenancy and the tenant is responsible for the costs. Rubbish removal

I have slightly reduced the amount sought by the landlord for rubbish removal on the basis that the mattress did not belong to her and was not her responsibility to dispose. Lock replacement

The landlord says the tenant did not return the keys and the locks had to be changed for which they seek reimbursement of $159.67.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

After considering all the evidence, I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage, which was likely caused carelessly.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842700 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4842700 — Property damage

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

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

Frequently asked questions