What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4871301?

The tribunal order states: Meiling Liu and Zhenzhou Xu must pay Ben Vallings And Kumeu Tax As

How much money was awarded in case 4871301?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871301?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10710760-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4871301?

The tribunal order states: Meiling Liu and Zhenzhou Xu must pay Ben Vallings And Kumeu Tax As

How much money was awarded in case 4871301?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4871301?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4871301?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10710760-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14A Ballymore Drive, Pinehill, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4871301 — Property damage

Order

Meiling Liu and Zhenzhou Xu must pay Ben Vallings And Kumeu Tax As Trustees For Bowring Properties Group $0.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5650957-004) to Ben Vallings And Kumeu Tax As Trustees For Bowring Properties Group immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 15 August 2024.
The tenants were supported by a mandarin speaking interpreter.
The landlord applied for rent and water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants applied for their bond to be refunded to them and reimbursement of the filing fee. They say they added value to the property by installing a double door side gate and making other such improvements and that because of their improvements the landlord will be able to charge the new tenants more rent. As such they say they do not consider the landlord’s claim against their bond to be fair and reasonable.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 15 March 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants expressed concerns that during their tenancy they never received water rates invoices from Water Care and questioned whether flat 14a was on a separate water meter to flat 14.
The landlord confirmed the two premises are on separate water meters and the tenants have only been charged for the consumption charges from the water bills it has received.
The tenants expressed concerns that the water rates charges may not be accurate as they have not had the opportunity to compare the landlord’s summary bills with the invoices produced by Water Care. The tenants wanted to have a summary of the water rates bills for the duration of their tenancy and all of the Water Care invoices to compare the amounts they were charged to see if there were any overpayments or underpayments.
The landlord agreed to provide this information to the tenants but suggested that it give the tenants a water rates discount of $359.91 to end matters today.
The tenants agreed to accept this sum in full and final settlement of any further disputes they may have in relation to the water rates they have been charged. For the avoidance of doubt, I am recording that the tenants have accepted $359.91 and in doing so, they have confirmed they understand they cannot make any further claims against the landlord in relation to water charges.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says the tenants left the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition but sought $200.00 compensation for the cleaning of the mineral build up on the glass in the shower.
The tenants argued that such a build up is from fair wear and tear from showering and they should not be liable for the cost to clean the shower.
The landlord argued the shower was new at the start of the tenancy and if it had been cleaned with a glass cleaner after each second use the glass would not have had such a significant mineral build up on it.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”. It does not have to be left at in new condition like it was at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord accepted the premise was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state and that the average reasonable bystander would consider a clean shower t claim for compensation for cleaning costs is dismissed for lack of evidence proving its claim and because the tenants have provided evidence which disproves liability for this cost as the premise was at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider to be a clean and mould free shower to be “reasonably tidy”. The tenants gave evidence they regularly cleaned the shower with jif and janola, but neither of those cleaners break down mineral deposits from water and from personal grooming products used in the shower. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.
I find that mineral deposits do build up on shower glass from normal use and this is to be categorised as fair wear and tear. The landlord’s claim for $200.00 for having the shower glass professionally cleaned is dismissed.

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. The kitchen bench top had two chips in it that needed to be repaired. The benchtop was new at the start of the tenancy; b. The tenants had used picture hooks and nails to hang items on the wall without the consent of the landlord and in contradiction to the express instructions in the tenancy agreement for the tenants to only use command hooks that stick on and don’t make holes in the walls; and c. Stains on the carpet in the bedroom and lounge from the tenants very young son spilling drinks or the like. The stains were small and a single stain in each of the rooms.
The tenants argued that they should be allowed to hang items on the walls with nails and picture hooks and they should have been given the opportunity to fix these holes themselves as it would have cost them less. Tenants are required to seek permission from a landlord before making holes in the walls to hang pictures or shelves or the like and if the landlord grants permission for a tenant to hang items of walls the tenants are required to restore the walls back to the state they were in prior to the tenants making those holes. After a tenant has given the landlord back possession of the property, a landlord is entitled to use whatever contractors they want to restore the walls and they are not obliged to get quotes and agreement from the tenant to get the repairs done.
The tenants also argued that the carpet stains should be fair wear and tear as they were made by a 1- to 2-year-old and that these two small stains were accidental and not as a result of any intentional or careless acts or omissions by the tenants. They explained they kept plastic sheets under the child when he was eating and drinking, and they are unsure how these stains occurred. They say they were careful and not careless with their care of the carpet. They paid for a professional carpet cleaning company to come and get the stains out. The stains were not removable. They offered to get the carpet patched. The landlord checked with the tenants contractor whether patching would be invisible, as the carpet had been new at the start of the tenancy. The contractor confirmed that patching is never invisible and he could not guarantee his patching would be. The landlord made a decision to make an insurance claim to get the bedroom and lounge carpet replaced, and only sought compensation for the $1,100.00 insurance excess ($550.00 per room) it had paid.
It is reasonably foreseeable that a baby may drop food or drinks on the carpet and ma make stains that cannot be removed by a professional carpet cleaner. This type of foreseeable damage to new carpet is more than fair wear and tear and is a cost the tenants should bear as the stains have resulted from them not keeping enough of an eye on the young child to prevent spills that cause permanent stains that cannot be removed.
A landlord is not required to settle for patching of the carpet, no matter how small the stains were. Patching is not invisible and the landlord was entitled to have the carpet replaced in order to address the stains.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA only provides for reimbursement of the filing fee where a party is wholly or substantially successful in their claims.
Because Ben Vallings And Kumeu Tax As Trustees For Bowring Properties Group has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in their claims so their application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4871301 — Property damage at 14A Ballymore Drive, Pinehill, Auckland 0632

Tenancy Tribunal case 4871301 — Property damage at 14A Ballymore Drive, Pinehill, Auckland 0632

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?

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?