What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4868280?

The tribunal order states: Lyana Banfield must pay Ducks Lane Limited $167.90 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4868280?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,387.46 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4868280?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4868280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10661088-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4868280?

The tribunal order states: Lyana Banfield must pay Ducks Lane Limited $167.90 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4868280?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,387.46 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4868280?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4868280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10661088-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

135 Cornwall Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4868280 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4868280 — net $167.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$2,387.46	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$167.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$167.90

Order

Lyana Banfield must pay Ducks Lane Limited $167.90 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (3165960-006) to Ducks Lane Limited immediately.
The applications for exemplary damages and compensation for rugs are withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenant by phone.
The landlord has applied for compensation in relation to repairs and painting of wall, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
There had been two other claims, one for rugs and one for exemplary damages, but the landlord advised that the issue of the rugs had been settled and the only claim for damages being pursued was the matter of damage to the walls.
The tenant accepted that there had been damage to the walls, but claimed that she was not given an adequate opportunity to repair it. She said that she went back to the property and the code for the lock had changed.
The tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy, due to end on 13 May 2024. The tenant moved out before then, but in accordance with the terms of the lease, paid her rent up to 13 May.
The tenant moved out on 8 April 2024. On 9 April she advised that the house was empty and that the holes had been filled in.
On 14 April the landlord held an open home for new prospective tenants and noticed that all the walls had plaster patches. The photos produced show multiple white patches of lumpy plaster throughout the house.
The landlords served a 14-day notice to remedy some items including the damage done to the walls. The notice to remedy clearly set out a photo of each issue and stipulated what was required to be done in order to remedy it. The bathroom, laundry, hallway, dining room, lounge and bedrooms all had multiple patches. The landlords provided photographs of each wall and for each photo provided two options for remedy. The first was to sand the filled-in areas and paint to match the existing colour. Alternatively, the landlord would provide a quote and deduct the amount from the bond.
In the meantime, the landlord obtained a quote for the repairs, to sand plastered areas, touch up and to paint all the walls except for the bathroom. The quote was for $2,530.00.
On 28 April the landlords texted asking when the tenant would like to attend for a final inspection. The date of 11 May was agreed.
The notice to remedy expired on 28 April. The photos taken after 28 April show that some efforts had been made to sand and paint the patches, but all areas of repair are still visible. Although the patches are smoother, the painted areas show up. The tenant had not painted each wall in its entirety.
On 29 April the tenant asked for a breakdown of the quote provided, saying that she had an uncle and cousin who are painters and their quote was way less than the $2000 quote provided. She sent a further email saying that the plaster was sanded flat and the remainder cleaned off with a cloth. She had a concern that about the living room as the closest colour match Resene got was not 100%, but barely noticeable. She said the living room was painted but she did not think the rest needed to be painted to fulfil her obligations as a tenant as it is only wear and tear and not damage.
The landlord’s contractors started painting on 8 May 2024.
The tenant did not attend the 11 May final inspection.
On 11 May the landlords emailed setting out all the items that had been on the 14-day notice, noting that they were no longer seeking compensation or remedy for most items but were pursuing the issue of the missing rugs and the plastering and painting of the walls.
The tenant did not dispute the matter of the rugs and that has been settled between them.

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.
The tenant did not dispute that the plaster patches were placed during the tenancy. No photos were produced of the walls before the plastering was done and so I cannot assess the extent of any holes in the walls before then. The tenant also accepts that she arranged for the sanding and painting of the patches.
Having viewed the photographs, I am satisfied that the patched areas remain visible after the tenant’s attempt to remedy. As I noted at the hearing, it is not possible to match paint from a different batch, even if the same colour is mixed. Painting of small areas is only successful if using leftover paint from the original batch. Therefore, when patching and painting with different paint, the entire wall needs to be painted.
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.
There were many patches on the walls. I am satisfied that the walls needed to be fully tidied and painted. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant needed to remedy the damage. She was given an opportunity to do so, but the marks remained. At the hearing, she said that she should have been given a further opportunity to remedy this before the tenancy ended. If her emails on 29 April had indicated that she wanted to do that before 13 May, I may have taken that into account in considering compensation. However, that is not what the emails said. They were questioning the amount quoted and said that she did not consider the walls needed further painting that the state of the walls was fair wear and tear. Accordingly, it was entirely reasonable that the landlords proceeded to have the walls repaired and repainted on 8 May 2024.
The landlords submitted an invoice for work and receipts for paint totalling $2,387.46. The amount ordered is proved.
Because Ducks Lane Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4868280 — net $167.90 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$2,387.46	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$167.90
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$167.90

Order

Lyana Banfield must pay Ducks Lane Limited $167.90 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,240.00 (3165960-006) to Ducks Lane Limited immediately.
The applications for exemplary damages and compensation for rugs are withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenant by phone.
The landlord has applied for compensation in relation to repairs and painting of wall, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
There had been two other claims, one for rugs and one for exemplary damages, but the landlord advised that the issue of the rugs had been settled and the only claim for damages being pursued was the matter of damage to the walls.
The tenant accepted that there had been damage to the walls, but claimed that she was not given an adequate opportunity to repair it. She said that she went back to the property and the code for the lock had changed.
The tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy, due to end on 13 May 2024. The tenant moved out before then, but in accordance with the terms of the lease, paid her rent up to 13 May.
The tenant moved out on 8 April 2024. On 9 April she advised that the house was empty and that the holes had been filled in.
On 14 April the landlord held an open home for new prospective tenants and noticed that all the walls had plaster patches. The photos produced show multiple white patches of lumpy plaster throughout the house.
The landlords served a 14-day notice to remedy some items including the damage done to the walls. The notice to remedy clearly set out a photo of each issue and stipulated what was required to be done in order to remedy it. The bathroom, laundry, hallway, dining room, lounge and bedrooms all had multiple patches. The landlords provided photographs of each wall and for each photo provided two options for remedy. The first was to sand the filled-in areas and paint to match the existing colour. Alternatively, the landlord would provide a quote and deduct the amount from the bond.
In the meantime, the landlord obtained a quote for the repairs, to sand plastered areas, touch up and to paint all the walls except for the bathroom. The quote was for $2,530.00.
On 28 April the landlords texted asking when the tenant would like to attend for a final inspection. The date of 11 May was agreed.
The notice to remedy expired on 28 April. The photos taken after 28 April show that some efforts had been made to sand and paint the patches, but all areas of repair are still visible. Although the patches are smoother, the painted areas show up. The tenant had not painted each wall in its entirety.
On 29 April the tenant asked for a breakdown of the quote provided, saying that she had an uncle and cousin who are painters and their quote was way less than the $2000 quote provided. She sent a further email saying that the plaster was sanded flat and the remainder cleaned off with a cloth. She had a concern that about the living room as the closest colour match Resene got was not 100%, but barely noticeable. She said the living room was painted but she did not think the rest needed to be painted to fulfil her obligations as a tenant as it is only wear and tear and not damage.
The landlord’s contractors started painting on 8 May 2024.
The tenant did not attend the 11 May final inspection.
On 11 May the landlords emailed setting out all the items that had been on the 14-day notice, noting that they were no longer seeking compensation or remedy for most items but were pursuing the issue of the missing rugs and the plastering and painting of the walls.
The tenant did not dispute the matter of the rugs and that has been settled between them.

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.
The tenant did not dispute that the plaster patches were placed during the tenancy. No photos were produced of the walls before the plastering was done and so I cannot assess the extent of any holes in the walls before then. The tenant also accepts that she arranged for the sanding and painting of the patches.
Having viewed the photographs, I am satisfied that the patched areas remain visible after the tenant’s attempt to remedy. As I noted at the hearing, it is not possible to match paint from a different batch, even if the same colour is mixed. Painting of small areas is only successful if using leftover paint from the original batch. Therefore, when patching and painting with different paint, the entire wall needs to be painted.
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.
There were many patches on the walls. I am satisfied that the walls needed to be fully tidied and painted. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant needed to remedy the damage. She was given an opportunity to do so, but the marks remained. At the hearing, she said that she should have been given a further opportunity to remedy this before the tenancy ended. If her emails on 29 April had indicated that she wanted to do that before 13 May, I may have taken that into account in considering compensation. However, that is not what the emails said. They were questioning the amount quoted and said that she did not consider the walls needed further painting that the state of the walls was fair wear and tear. Accordingly, it was entirely reasonable that the landlords proceeded to have the walls repaired and repainted on 8 May 2024.
The landlords submitted an invoice for work and receipts for paint totalling $2,387.46. The amount ordered is proved.
Because Ducks Lane Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4868280 — Property damage at 135 Cornwall Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4868280 — Property damage at 135 Cornwall Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions