What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4855332?

The tribunal order states: Bond Services is to release the bond in two payments as follows:

How much money was awarded in case 4855332?

Cleaning: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Paint Touch Up: $208.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $386.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855332?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10555267-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4855332?

The tribunal order states: Bond Services is to release the bond in two payments as follows:

How much money was awarded in case 4855332?

Cleaning: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Paint Touch Up: $208.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $386.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855332?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10555267-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1235A Victoria Street, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4855332 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4855332. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Vacate Clean	$109.25	Vacate Clean
Paint Touch Up	$208.15	Paint Touch Up
Replace Damaged Benchtop	$386.50	Replace Damaged Benchtop
Filing Fee	$20.44	Filing Fee

Order

Bond Services is to release the bond in two payments as follows: a. Landlord: $724.34 b. Tenant: $1075.66
The amount awarded to the Landlord at 1 above is calculated as follows:

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not attend or contact the Tribunal Registry to confirm whether he would be present at the hearing.
The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. DescriptionLandlord Vacate Clean $109.25 Paint Touch Up $208.15 Replace Damaged Benchtop $386.50 Filing Fee$20.44 Total award$724.34 Deducted from Bond ($1,800.00)$724.34 Balance of Bond to Tenant$1075.66

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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, the oven and shower were left in a very dirty state, as the Landlord’s pre and post tenancy photographs establish. I award $109.25 for cleaning, as per the Landlord’s invoice.

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: a. Kitchen benchtop has a circular mark, which appears to have been caused by a hot item being placed on it. This mark was not present before the tenancy. The Landlord has provided photographs and provided corroborating oral evidence. b. The wall behind the main entrance door has a series of consecutive, circular dents of similar size (pen width). The dents are quite deep. I accept the property manager’s evidence that she saw behind the door at the start of the tenancy and the dents were not there.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The Landlord has provided invoices to support its claims for compensation.
I award $208.15 for the touching up of the wall behind the main entrance door.
The kitchen benchtop was in very good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. It looked brand new. The mark left behind by the tenant is not a mark which could easily be repaired. However, it was clearly visible.
I need to consider what constitutes a reasonable award of compensation. Although the benchtop has a mark, it remains in good condition and fit for purpose, albeit less visually appealing. If I were to choose between replacing the benchtop at the Tenant’s expense or reletting the premises with the marked benchtop and providing some compensation for the diminished value, I would deem the latter to be the most reasonable course.
It could be argued that the benchtop would never be the same again. However, tenants cannot expect a home to be completely free of marks. The mark might lead future tenants to take less care of the bench, potentially affecting the rent price or the type of tenant attracted. Nonetheless, it is a rental property, not a show home. Any current or future tenants who neglect the Landlord’s property because of existing damage would do so at their own risk. If further damage occurred beyond fair wear and tear, I would award the Landlord compensation for that damage.
In this case, I will award compensation concerning the diminution in value of the benchtop, amounting to $386.50. I take into account that the visual appeal of the benchtop has been compromised by the mark, and it is the visual appeal of the benchtop that undoubtedly motivated the Landlord to purchase and install this particular benchtop. Additionally, while I do not believe the mark will significantly affect the rental price, it acknowledges the decreased visual appeal and compensates for the Landlord’s investment in maintaining a high standard for the property.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The Landlord has succeeded with its claim, and I reimburse its filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4855332. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Vacate Clean	$109.25	Vacate Clean
Paint Touch Up	$208.15	Paint Touch Up
Replace Damaged Benchtop	$386.50	Replace Damaged Benchtop
Filing Fee	$20.44	Filing Fee

Order

Bond Services is to release the bond in two payments as follows: a. Landlord: $724.34 b. Tenant: $1075.66
The amount awarded to the Landlord at 1 above is calculated as follows:

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not attend or contact the Tribunal Registry to confirm whether he would be present at the hearing.
The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. DescriptionLandlord Vacate Clean $109.25 Paint Touch Up $208.15 Replace Damaged Benchtop $386.50 Filing Fee$20.44 Total award$724.34 Deducted from Bond ($1,800.00)$724.34 Balance of Bond to Tenant$1075.66

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: s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, the oven and shower were left in a very dirty state, as the Landlord’s pre and post tenancy photographs establish. I award $109.25 for cleaning, as per the Landlord’s invoice.

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: a. Kitchen benchtop has a circular mark, which appears to have been caused by a hot item being placed on it. This mark was not present before the tenancy. The Landlord has provided photographs and provided corroborating oral evidence. b. The wall behind the main entrance door has a series of consecutive, circular dents of similar size (pen width). The dents are quite deep. I accept the property manager’s evidence that she saw behind the door at the start of the tenancy and the dents were not there.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The Landlord has provided invoices to support its claims for compensation.
I award $208.15 for the touching up of the wall behind the main entrance door.
The kitchen benchtop was in very good condition at the commencement of the tenancy. It looked brand new. The mark left behind by the tenant is not a mark which could easily be repaired. However, it was clearly visible.
I need to consider what constitutes a reasonable award of compensation. Although the benchtop has a mark, it remains in good condition and fit for purpose, albeit less visually appealing. If I were to choose between replacing the benchtop at the Tenant’s expense or reletting the premises with the marked benchtop and providing some compensation for the diminished value, I would deem the latter to be the most reasonable course.
It could be argued that the benchtop would never be the same again. However, tenants cannot expect a home to be completely free of marks. The mark might lead future tenants to take less care of the bench, potentially affecting the rent price or the type of tenant attracted. Nonetheless, it is a rental property, not a show home. Any current or future tenants who neglect the Landlord’s property because of existing damage would do so at their own risk. If further damage occurred beyond fair wear and tear, I would award the Landlord compensation for that damage.
In this case, I will award compensation concerning the diminution in value of the benchtop, amounting to $386.50. I take into account that the visual appeal of the benchtop has been compromised by the mark, and it is the visual appeal of the benchtop that undoubtedly motivated the Landlord to purchase and install this particular benchtop. Additionally, while I do not believe the mark will significantly affect the rental price, it acknowledges the decreased visual appeal and compensates for the Landlord’s investment in maintaining a high standard for the property.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The Landlord has succeeded with its claim, and I reimburse its filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855332 — Property damage at 1235A Victoria Street, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855332 — Property damage at 1235A Victoria Street, Whitiora, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Claims & awards

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

Claims & awards

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