What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4844502 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,229.01 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4844502?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Holes On Exterior Boards: $319.01 awarded to landlord; Lawn Reseeding: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4844502?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4844502?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11050990-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4844502 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,229.01 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4844502?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Holes On Exterior Boards: $319.01 awarded to landlord; Lawn Reseeding: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4844502?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4844502?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11050990-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4844502 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4844502 — net $1,229.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Holes on exterior boards	$319.01	Repairs: Holes on exterior boards
Cleaning: Deck	$300.00	Cleaning: Deck
Repairs: Lawn reseeding	$460.00	Repairs: Lawn reseeding
Oven/stove cleaning	$150.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Net award	$1,229.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,229.01

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,229.01 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,229.01 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,610.99 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 6 th November 2024. Previous order made on 27 th May 2024

The Tribunal had issued an interim order on 27 th May 2024 awarding the tenant $1,320.00 for the loss of enjoyment of the premises. 4844502, 4882320, 4962475, 50463102

In the interim order, the Tribunal also issued a work order requiring the tenant to engage in a registered, fully qualified professional that has been approved by the landlord to remove any remaining nails from hanging the Christmas decorations outside and fill all the holes created by the Christmas decorations.

The landlord was required to approve the use of the registered, fully qualified professional unless there was a reasonable explanation for any disapproval.

The tenant presented a quote from a registered, fully qualified professional for the work to be done at a cost of $277.40 plus GST. However, the landlord had disapproved of that quote as she insisted on having the exterior cedar boards replaced entirely instead of the holes being filled.

I had already heard the argument made by the landlord at the hearing on 23 rd May 2024. I had found that the tenant was only liable to have the holes filled by a professional.

As the landlord had disapproved of the tenant’s suggested professional, the tenant could not fulfil the work order made.

As the tenancy has now finished, I order the tenant to pay the landlord $319.01 as compensation for the holes created on the exterior boards instead. The landlord’s remaining claims

The landlord had filed a subsequent application for compensation for the following: a. Damaged/stained deck; b. Damage to the lawn due to the tenant parking on the grass; c. Damage to the lawn from a swimming pool placed on the lawn; d. Damage to the driveway concrete; e. Damage to the front door powder coating; and f. Cleaning costs for the oven.

The rules regarding damage claims were covered in the previous order dated 27 th May 2024. Damaged/stained deck

The landlord claimed that the deck was stained when the tenants stained their outdoor table and chairs on the deck.

The tenant said that the deck had rust marks from the outdoor metal umbrella base. The tenant said that the base had rusted in the past and that they were able to clean it off in the past. 4844502, 4882320, 4962475, 50463103

I accept that that the mark was from the metal umbrella base. However, the tenant should have been more careful knowing that the base was prone to rusting.

From the photos, I do not find that the rust was cleaned off to a reasonable standard. I also note circular marks left by the tenant’s pot plants. I find that they exceeded fair wear and tear.

The landlord had received a quote of $575.00 to have the deck replaced. I do not see any need for the deck to be replaced. The deck would need to be cleaned professionally to get it to a reasonable standard.

I order the tenant to pay the landlord $300.00 as compensation to get the deck professionally cleaned. Damage to the lawn due to the tenant parking on the grass

The landlord claimed that the tenant has put gravel on the grass area to use it as a parking space for their car. There was evidence of a car being parked on top of the gravel in the lawn. There was also a boat that was kept on the grass.

The tenant stated that they did not put gravel on the grass and that it was the landlord’s own drainlayer that had put gravel after some work was done to the pipes underneath.

The tenant did accept having parked their car and keeping a boat as described.

Clause 11 of the tenancy agreement stated: “park only the tenant’s car(s) in the space(s) provided and to ensure that all guests park on the street.”

The tenant said that they were unaware of that clause being in the tenancy agreement. The tenant said that they had more cars than the spaces provided.

The tenant was in breach of the tenancy agreement by parking the car on the grass along with the boat.

The landlord sought $437.00 to inspect the private drainage pipes immediately below where the car and the boat were as the topsoil was shallow and there was a concern regarding possible damage to the pipes below.

However, the landlord has lived at the premises herself after the tenancy ended in July 2024 and there have not been any issues with the pipes as far as the landlord was aware since.

I do not award any amount for any possible pipe damage at this stage. The landlord is free to have the pipes checked and lodge a new claim with the Tribunal if there is damage. The landlord will still need to prove that the damage was caused by the tenant if pursued.

For the damage caused to the lawn by parking, I order the tenant to pay the landlord $460.00 for reseeding of approximately 15 square metres of grass. 4844502, 4882320, 4962475, 50463104 Damage to the lawn from a swimming pool placed on the lawn

The landlord claimed that there was grass damaged due to a swimming pool that was placed on the lawn.

The tenant accepted there having been a swimming pool but said that the grass was in no better state when the tenant had moved in.

As the premises was a new build, there was evidence that the area was initially without grass and the lawn was not in a good state when the tenant moved in. The tenant had evidence of asking the landlord if they could do the reseeding themselves around the beginning of the tenancy.

The tenant said that they had the grass reseeded at their own cost.

Having seen the photo of the lawn at the beginning of the tenancy, I do not find that there was any substantial damage to the lawn due to the swimming pool.

Accordingly, I decline to award any amount for the lawn for the swimming pool. Driveway damage

The landlord claimed that the driveway concrete was damaged due to the tenant driving through the edges and parking their car on the grass. The tenant said that it was not careless damage and that it was fair wear and tear.

The damage to the driveway concrete was a hairline crack on the corner of the concrete in front of the garage.

I am not satisfied that the hairline crack was due to the tenant’s careless use. There is no evidence to suggest that it was caused carelessly or intentionally.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no basis for seeking $16,712.38 for resealing of the entire driveway.

The landlord is still using the same driveway without any issue now. I dismiss this claim. Damage to the front door powder coating

The landlord claimed that the powder coating on the front door was damaged by the tenants hanging Christmas ornaments on the door.

The picture provided by the landlord showed some scratch marks on the surface of the door. The scratch marks looked superficial at most.

The landlord had an estimated quote of $9,000.00 to have the door replaced.

The tenant provided a photo of the door taken on 16 th July 2024 at the end of the tenancy. No damage or scratch marks were able to be seen. 4844502, 4882320, 4962475, 50463105

I do not find that the door was damaged at all. This claim is dismissed. Cleaning costs for the oven

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean. This includes the oven.

The landlord provided photos to prove that the tenant did not leave the oven reasonable clean.

The tenant said that the tenant was unable to reach some parts of the oven.

I find that the landlord has proven that the tenant had not left the oven reasonably clean.

The landlord had a quote for the oven cleaning of $207.00. However, the landlord confirmed that she had cleaned the oven herself instead.

I grant the landlord $150.00 as an adjusted compensation figure for the oven not having been left reasonably clean. The tenant’s cross-application

The tenant made a cross-application to the landlord’s cross-application seeking for refund of the bond and $500 for the time spent for the hearing.

The tenant cannot claim for the time spent for the hearing. The bond will be paid out to both parties as ordered above.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4844502 — net $1,229.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Holes on exterior boards	$319.01	Repairs: Holes on exterior boards
Cleaning: Deck	$300.00	Cleaning: Deck
Repairs: Lawn reseeding	$460.00	Repairs: Lawn reseeding
Oven/stove cleaning	$150.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Net award	$1,229.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,229.01