What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4853160 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] are to pay Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts $1,603.43 from

How much money was awarded in case 4853160?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $397.71 awarded to landlord; Repaint Walls: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Kitchen Cupboard Glass: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $282.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4853160?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4853160?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10615752-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4853160 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] are to pay Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts $1,603.43 from

How much money was awarded in case 4853160?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $397.71 awarded to landlord; Repaint Walls: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Kitchen Cupboard Glass: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $282.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4853160?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4853160?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10615752-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

79D Ash Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4853160 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

79D Ash Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4853160 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4853160 — net $1,603.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 12.2.2024	$397.71	Rent arrears to 12.2.2024
replace kitchen cupboard glass	$230.00	replace kitchen cupboard glass
Lock/key replacement	$172.50	Lock/key replacement
Repaint walls	$300.00	Repaint walls
Repair additional hole and small dents	$200.00	Repair additional hole and small dents
Water rates	$282.78	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,603.43
Bond	$2,840.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,603.43

Claims and awards for application 4853160 — net $1,603.43 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 12.2.2024

Amount: $397.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 12.2.2024

replace kitchen cupboard glass

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: replace kitchen cupboard glass

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $172.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repaint walls

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repaint walls

Repair additional hole and small dents

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair additional hole and small dents

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] are to pay Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts $1,603.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts: $1,603.43 [The tenant/s]: $1,236.57

Reasons

Ms Che attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. [The tenant/s], also both attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, outgoings, 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 12 February 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing for rent arrears at the end of the tenancy, which is $397.71. The tenants eventually accepted they owe this amount for rent arrears.
The landlord alleged the tenants owed $1,009.71 in water rates to the end of the tenancy on 12 February 2024. The landlord provided water invoices and their water ledger. The tenants did not dispute that they owed the landlord for water rates from 5 December 2023 to the end of the tenancy on 12 February 2024, which is $282.78. The tenants disputed they owed anything for water rates from before 5 December 2023. The landlord confirmed the amount disputed for water rates owing by the tenants was only for the period starting 1 May 2023, as the tenants had paid all earlier water bills. Thus, the parties disputed water rates owing for the period 1 May 2023 to 5 December 2023.
The tenants explained they had made regular payments towards water bills, ensuring that any part payments made within a month would be equivalent to the water bill owing for that month. They acknowledged that, at times, they paid full water bills and at other times would make part payments. However, they were adamant they had paid all bills to date up to 5 December 2023. The tenants provided bank account statements for several of their accounts which had paid either rent or water bills to the landlord. The tenants said they had experienced much frustration over the period of the tenancy as frequently the payments they made to the landlord, especially for water bills, did not show up on the landlord’s ledger. [The tenant/s] said she had spoken to several property managers at the landlord’s office to sort this out and had asked the landlord’s accountant to revisit the figures attributed to the tenants’ contributions. The parties disputed whether the tenants had provided copies of their bank statements to the landlord’s office for this purpose.
Whilst the landlord said they claimed $1,009.71 for total water bills owing from 1 May 2023 to 12 February 2024, the end of the tenancy, the Watercare invoices provided by the landlord for this period, as well as $36.99 charged to and agreed by the tenants, for the last 9 days of the tenancy from 4 February to 12 February 2024, which post-dated the last water bill, totalled $1,228.82, according to my calculations. As these figures differ from the amount claimed by the landlord, I find the landlord has not proved the amount owing by the tenants for water rates. However, as the tenants acknowledged they owe the landlord $282.78 for water from 5 December 2023 to 12 February 2024, I order the tenants to pay the landlord $282.78 for the period from 5 December 2023 to 12 February 2024 for water rates.

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 landlord said the tenants did not return one missing key for the front door and, as a result, the landlord had to change the front door lock for security. After some discussion about this, the tenants said they understood why the landlord had to do this and confirmed they had not returned one of the front door keys, which had gone missing.
The landlord provided an invoice for replacing the lock, which was for $172.50, which I find to be reasonable. Therefore, I order that the tenants owe the landlord $172.50 to replace the front door lock.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Broken glass in kitchen cupboard door
The landlord said the tenants broke the glass in a kitchen cupboard door. The tenants confirmed their young autistic son had accidentally broken this glass. From the evidence provided, I find it more than likely that the glass in the kitchen cupboard door was damaged during the tenancy, that it was more than fair wear and tear and was likely careless damage by the tenants. As such, the tenants are liable for the replacement cost, bearing in mind the cap in section 49B RTA.
The parties discussed some prior agreement reached between them as to the repair of the broken glass and painting at the property. However, as this agreement broke down prior to the claim being filed, these claims are considered anew here.
The landlord provided a quote to replace the glass in the kitchen cupboard glass for $230.00, which I find to be a reasonable amount for this. Therefore, the tenants are to pay the landlord $230.00 to replace the broken glass in the kitchen cupboard. Holes in the walls and doors
The landlord said the tenants had caused holes, dents and other damage to the walls and doors at the property. The tenants said their very young autistic son had caused most of this damage. The tenants said further that several smaller nicks in the walls and doors had been there when they first moved into the property. I find the damage caused by the tenants, from the evidence provided, in relation to the larger holes and dents in the walls and doors, to have likely been caused during the tenancy, to have been more than fair wear and tear, and that it was likely careless damage on the part of the tenants. As such, the tenants are liable for the repair cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the cap in section 49B RTA.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be considered. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item must be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
The parties had reached earlier agreement that the landlord would arrange for a plasterer to fill the holes and the tenants would pay for the plasterer, which both parties confirmed had occurred. The parties said that one of the tenants, who said he was a qualified painter, was to paint the walls over these plastered holes, at his own cost, as agreed between the parties. However, the landlord said that not only had this tenant painted the walls and doors different colours to the paint already there, thus causing two contrasting paint colours on the walls and doors, but that there were new holes caused and discovered by the landlord after the other holes had been plastered. The landlord did not trust the tenants to repaint the walls and doors properly, despite the tenants requesting to do this and saying they had not had enough time to paint the plastered areas before moving out. The landlord arranged for another painter to paint the plastered areas with the correct paint and fix an additional hole and some larger dents found after the other areas had been plastered originally.
I note that, from the photographs provided of the paint job completed by the tenants, the paint put on by the tenants is highly contrasting, and appeared to be a different colour, from the paint colour already on the walls and doors. As such, I consider the painting done by the tenants to be sub-standard in the circumstances and find the landlord would have needed to have these areas repainted.
The main issue between the parties was the cost of the repairs. The landlord provided an invoice for $2,317.25, which was for repairing a wall, the kitchen door, fixing and painting 2 doors, fixing and painting a hole in the wall. However, the property manager did not know the hourly rate of this tradesperson nor the amount of time they spent on the repairs, nor the amount attributable to the painting required and for fixing one additional hole found in a wall and some further larger dents discovered.
The tenants initially estimated a reasonable cost for painting the plastered holes to be around $385.00 plus GST plus materials and paint, which they estimated would take around 11 hours @ approximately $35.00/hour. However, the property manager pointed out that the tenants had provided the landlord with a quote to paint these areas for $1,500.00. The tenants said they had been asked by the landlord to provide a quote but their brother, a builder, had been prepared to do the repairs for free. Notwithstanding this, I find the quote for $1,500.00 provided by the tenants, which the tenants agreed they had provided, to the landlord would likely have been for an amount which the tenants considered reasonable at the time for this work. The tenants clarified this was only for painting over the previously plastered holes. The photographs and other evidence provided about the work required to repaint the originally plastered holes and dents and to repair the additional hole and larger dents, indicate that repair work would have been required. Given the difference between the landlord’s invoice for $2,317.25 and the tenants’ quote for $1,500.00 (GST inclusive apparently), which is $817.25, which could reasonably account for work completed by the landlord’s tradesperson which was not painting the areas already plastered, I find $1,500.00 to be a reasonable amount for repairing any remaining large hole and dents in walls and doors and painting all plastered areas the same colour as the original paint.
The landlord said they did not know when the property had last been painted prior to the tenancy but from photographs provided by the landlord, the walls appear to have been painted around 8 years ago. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $1,500.00 cost by 80% for depreciation to an award of $300.00 for the painting required.
I acknowledge that the landlord likely had to pay for plastering of at least one additional hole in the wall and a few larger dents, so I also allow and additional $200.00 for this plastering cost, which I find to be reasonable. I do not award the landlord the cost of any repairs to smaller nicks in the walls and doors, as these could have been present before the tenancy, and would equate to fair wear and tear in any event.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Bond
[The tenant/s] are to pay Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts $1,603.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts: $1,603.43 [The tenant/s]: $1,236.57 Filing fee
Because Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression whereas the tenants did request name suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants’ evidence was that much of the damage to the property was caused by their very young autistic son, who was 3 years old at the time and who is in the process of being medically assessed. They said they have a number of additional very young children also and that they both work full time. The evidence was that both tenants had attempted over a period to negotiate solutions to the rent arrears, water rates and damage prior to the landlord filing the application. The tenants acknowledged what they believed they owed and also what they believed they damaged. In the circumstances and given the evidence, I find the tenants’ and their young family’s interests here, outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the tenants’ names and identifying details are not to be published.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4853160 — net $1,603.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 12.2.2024	$397.71	Rent arrears to 12.2.2024
replace kitchen cupboard glass	$230.00	replace kitchen cupboard glass
Lock/key replacement	$172.50	Lock/key replacement
Repaint walls	$300.00	Repaint walls
Repair additional hole and small dents	$200.00	Repair additional hole and small dents
Water rates	$282.78	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,603.43
Bond	$2,840.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,603.43

Claims and awards for application 4853160 — net $1,603.43 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 12.2.2024

Amount: $397.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 12.2.2024

replace kitchen cupboard glass

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: replace kitchen cupboard glass

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $172.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Repaint walls

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repaint walls

Repair additional hole and small dents

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair additional hole and small dents

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

[The tenant/s] are to pay Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts $1,603.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts: $1,603.43 [The tenant/s]: $1,236.57

Reasons

Ms Che attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. [The tenant/s], also both attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, outgoings, 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 12 February 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing for rent arrears at the end of the tenancy, which is $397.71. The tenants eventually accepted they owe this amount for rent arrears.
The landlord alleged the tenants owed $1,009.71 in water rates to the end of the tenancy on 12 February 2024. The landlord provided water invoices and their water ledger. The tenants did not dispute that they owed the landlord for water rates from 5 December 2023 to the end of the tenancy on 12 February 2024, which is $282.78. The tenants disputed they owed anything for water rates from before 5 December 2023. The landlord confirmed the amount disputed for water rates owing by the tenants was only for the period starting 1 May 2023, as the tenants had paid all earlier water bills. Thus, the parties disputed water rates owing for the period 1 May 2023 to 5 December 2023.
The tenants explained they had made regular payments towards water bills, ensuring that any part payments made within a month would be equivalent to the water bill owing for that month. They acknowledged that, at times, they paid full water bills and at other times would make part payments. However, they were adamant they had paid all bills to date up to 5 December 2023. The tenants provided bank account statements for several of their accounts which had paid either rent or water bills to the landlord. The tenants said they had experienced much frustration over the period of the tenancy as frequently the payments they made to the landlord, especially for water bills, did not show up on the landlord’s ledger. [The tenant/s] said she had spoken to several property managers at the landlord’s office to sort this out and had asked the landlord’s accountant to revisit the figures attributed to the tenants’ contributions. The parties disputed whether the tenants had provided copies of their bank statements to the landlord’s office for this purpose.
Whilst the landlord said they claimed $1,009.71 for total water bills owing from 1 May 2023 to 12 February 2024, the end of the tenancy, the Watercare invoices provided by the landlord for this period, as well as $36.99 charged to and agreed by the tenants, for the last 9 days of the tenancy from 4 February to 12 February 2024, which post-dated the last water bill, totalled $1,228.82, according to my calculations. As these figures differ from the amount claimed by the landlord, I find the landlord has not proved the amount owing by the tenants for water rates. However, as the tenants acknowledged they owe the landlord $282.78 for water from 5 December 2023 to 12 February 2024, I order the tenants to pay the landlord $282.78 for the period from 5 December 2023 to 12 February 2024 for water rates.

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 landlord said the tenants did not return one missing key for the front door and, as a result, the landlord had to change the front door lock for security. After some discussion about this, the tenants said they understood why the landlord had to do this and confirmed they had not returned one of the front door keys, which had gone missing.
The landlord provided an invoice for replacing the lock, which was for $172.50, which I find to be reasonable. Therefore, I order that the tenants owe the landlord $172.50 to replace the front door lock.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Broken glass in kitchen cupboard door
The landlord said the tenants broke the glass in a kitchen cupboard door. The tenants confirmed their young autistic son had accidentally broken this glass. From the evidence provided, I find it more than likely that the glass in the kitchen cupboard door was damaged during the tenancy, that it was more than fair wear and tear and was likely careless damage by the tenants. As such, the tenants are liable for the replacement cost, bearing in mind the cap in section 49B RTA.
The parties discussed some prior agreement reached between them as to the repair of the broken glass and painting at the property. However, as this agreement broke down prior to the claim being filed, these claims are considered anew here.
The landlord provided a quote to replace the glass in the kitchen cupboard glass for $230.00, which I find to be a reasonable amount for this. Therefore, the tenants are to pay the landlord $230.00 to replace the broken glass in the kitchen cupboard. Holes in the walls and doors
The landlord said the tenants had caused holes, dents and other damage to the walls and doors at the property. The tenants said their very young autistic son had caused most of this damage. The tenants said further that several smaller nicks in the walls and doors had been there when they first moved into the property. I find the damage caused by the tenants, from the evidence provided, in relation to the larger holes and dents in the walls and doors, to have likely been caused during the tenancy, to have been more than fair wear and tear, and that it was likely careless damage on the part of the tenants. As such, the tenants are liable for the repair cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the cap in section 49B RTA.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be considered. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item must be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
The parties had reached earlier agreement that the landlord would arrange for a plasterer to fill the holes and the tenants would pay for the plasterer, which both parties confirmed had occurred. The parties said that one of the tenants, who said he was a qualified painter, was to paint the walls over these plastered holes, at his own cost, as agreed between the parties. However, the landlord said that not only had this tenant painted the walls and doors different colours to the paint already there, thus causing two contrasting paint colours on the walls and doors, but that there were new holes caused and discovered by the landlord after the other holes had been plastered. The landlord did not trust the tenants to repaint the walls and doors properly, despite the tenants requesting to do this and saying they had not had enough time to paint the plastered areas before moving out. The landlord arranged for another painter to paint the plastered areas with the correct paint and fix an additional hole and some larger dents found after the other areas had been plastered originally.
I note that, from the photographs provided of the paint job completed by the tenants, the paint put on by the tenants is highly contrasting, and appeared to be a different colour, from the paint colour already on the walls and doors. As such, I consider the painting done by the tenants to be sub-standard in the circumstances and find the landlord would have needed to have these areas repainted.
The main issue between the parties was the cost of the repairs. The landlord provided an invoice for $2,317.25, which was for repairing a wall, the kitchen door, fixing and painting 2 doors, fixing and painting a hole in the wall. However, the property manager did not know the hourly rate of this tradesperson nor the amount of time they spent on the repairs, nor the amount attributable to the painting required and for fixing one additional hole found in a wall and some further larger dents discovered.
The tenants initially estimated a reasonable cost for painting the plastered holes to be around $385.00 plus GST plus materials and paint, which they estimated would take around 11 hours @ approximately $35.00/hour. However, the property manager pointed out that the tenants had provided the landlord with a quote to paint these areas for $1,500.00. The tenants said they had been asked by the landlord to provide a quote but their brother, a builder, had been prepared to do the repairs for free. Notwithstanding this, I find the quote for $1,500.00 provided by the tenants, which the tenants agreed they had provided, to the landlord would likely have been for an amount which the tenants considered reasonable at the time for this work. The tenants clarified this was only for painting over the previously plastered holes. The photographs and other evidence provided about the work required to repaint the originally plastered holes and dents and to repair the additional hole and larger dents, indicate that repair work would have been required. Given the difference between the landlord’s invoice for $2,317.25 and the tenants’ quote for $1,500.00 (GST inclusive apparently), which is $817.25, which could reasonably account for work completed by the landlord’s tradesperson which was not painting the areas already plastered, I find $1,500.00 to be a reasonable amount for repairing any remaining large hole and dents in walls and doors and painting all plastered areas the same colour as the original paint.
The landlord said they did not know when the property had last been painted prior to the tenancy but from photographs provided by the landlord, the walls appear to have been painted around 8 years ago. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that the lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $1,500.00 cost by 80% for depreciation to an award of $300.00 for the painting required.
I acknowledge that the landlord likely had to pay for plastering of at least one additional hole in the wall and a few larger dents, so I also allow and additional $200.00 for this plastering cost, which I find to be reasonable. I do not award the landlord the cost of any repairs to smaller nicks in the walls and doors, as these could have been present before the tenancy, and would equate to fair wear and tear in any event.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Bond
[The tenant/s] are to pay Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts $1,603.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts: $1,603.43 [The tenant/s]: $1,236.57 Filing fee
Because Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression whereas the tenants did request name suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants’ evidence was that much of the damage to the property was caused by their very young autistic son, who was 3 years old at the time and who is in the process of being medically assessed. They said they have a number of additional very young children also and that they both work full time. The evidence was that both tenants had attempted over a period to negotiate solutions to the rent arrears, water rates and damage prior to the landlord filing the application. The tenants acknowledged what they believed they owed and also what they believed they damaged. In the circumstances and given the evidence, I find the tenants’ and their young family’s interests here, outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the tenants’ names and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4853160 — Rent arrears at 79D Ash Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4853160 — Rent arrears at 79D Ash Street, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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