What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4875303 about?

The tribunal order states: This order amends an order dated 29 October 2024 by amending the name of

How much money was awarded in case 4875303?

Cleaning: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $28.25 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher Seal: $110.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4875303?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4875303?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11111135-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4875303 about?

The tribunal order states: This order amends an order dated 29 October 2024 by amending the name of

How much money was awarded in case 4875303?

Cleaning: $109.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $28.25 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher Seal: $110.42 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4875303?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4875303?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11111135-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4875303 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

(CORRIGENDUM)

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4875303 — net $227.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Key replacement	$28.25		Key replacement
Repairs: dishwasher seal	$110.42		Repairs: dishwasher seal
Cleaning: tape, pink on vinyl	$109.25		13. Remove tape from rangehood and pink marks in bathroom: I award this claim as the landlord proved that extra cleaning was needed to remove sticky tape resid…
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$247.92	$20.44
Net award	$227.48
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$227.48

This order amends an order dated 29 October 2024 by amending the name of the landlord.

ORIGINAL ORDER

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Glasshouse Property Management Limited As Agent For Annelee Scott $227.48 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Glasshouse Property Management Limited As Agent For Annelee Scott: $227.48 [The tenant/s]: $1,612.52

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings (the landlord by its agents). This is a dispute about refund of the bond and end of tenancy costs. The law on tenant obligations and damage claims

At the end of a tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all landlord chattels. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

If making a claim for damage, a landlord must prove that any damage happened during this tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Fair wear and tear is anything that would happen as a normal and ordinary part of living in the property.

If a landlord proves damage during the tenancy that is more than wear and tear, then the tenant must prove that the damage is not careless or intentional.

When working out compensation, 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. This often means that the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the damaged areas or items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Claims

Rent: The tenancy ended on 19 April 2024 with no rent owing.

Keys: The landlord claims $293.09 to rekey one lock, “pin” all locks to the same key, and cut keys. The tenant agrees she lost the key to one door. The parties agree the tenant replaced a malfunctioning ranchslider lock early in the tenancy and has not yet been reimbursed. I award one-third of the invoice ($97.70) to the landlord to cover the cost to attend and rekey the door the tenant lost the key to and to cut new keys. The landlord chose to have the locks pinned to the same key so that is at the landlord’s cost. I award the tenant $69.45 reimbursement for the ranchslider lock (based on the advertised product, as provided in evidence). The net award is $28.25.

Repair dishwasher: The landlord claims $539.71 for repairs to the dishwasher. The invoice specifies the work as being to replace the door seal (gasket), replace door hinges, spring and rope, replace door lock, and replace spray arm. The tenant agrees she removed the door seal after a sharp knife split this and that she intended to replace it. She said she was not aware of any other damage. I find she is liable to replace the seal because it was missing. There were no photos to prove any other damage and no evidence from the repairer to explain what the other issues were (ie; what was wrong with the door and sprayer) and the landlord’s representatives had no direct knowledge of this. I award the amount of the door seal ($46.02) plus a share of the labour and callout ($50.00) + GST $14.40 which is a total of $110.42.

Garage remote: the landlord claims $281.75 to supply and code a new garage remote which it says was missing. The tenant proved in the hearing that she returned the garage remote. It is shown in a photo in the final inspection (photo 89). The landlord then said the remote was not working but the tenant says she tested it, and it was. The property manager who did the final inspection was not at the hearing. The landlord has not proved that the garage remote was damaged or missing during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.

Curtain rails: the landlord claims $230.00+gst to replace curtain rails above the ranchslider and above one window in the lounge. One photo shows the rail twisted out of the bracket, but this was taken on 22 April 2024 after the owner had done a working bee at the property. The photos of the curtains in the final inspection (taken on 19 April 2024) do not prove damage to the curtain rails. The landlord has not proven damage during the tenancy, so this claim is dismissed. I note that the photos do show that the curtains are very long so it is possible that they may be too heavy for the rails.

Repairs to walls: the landlord claims $1,891.75 for minor wall repair of dents and to remedy tenant repairs that were not smooth or where paint did not match. The tenant accepts that she patched three holes in walls caused by door handles hitting the wall, and three small “push pin” holes where she had attached and then removed a shelf in the garage. She agrees that her repairs were not perfect. Considerable time was spent going through the repair invoice and photographs. The contractor gave oral evidence that he did not keep a record of the cost of the materials and that his hourly rate is $85.00 excluding gst. After careful consideration, I make the below decisions (in the same order as the invoice):- a. I disregard the close-up photos supplied by the landlord as these were taken after the owners and other contractors had done two days of work in the property. They are therefore not a record of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. b. The landlord proved and the tenant agrees that the tenant repairs where door handles had damaged the walls were not done to a reasonable standard. The filler used was not flat and the paint did not match the wall colour. However, door handles do sometimes hit the wall as part of normal use of tenancy premises. I accept the tenant’s evidence that where this occurred there was either no doorstop or the doorstop was too short to prevent the door hitting the wall. This is not the fault of a tenant, and any damage is therefore normal wear and tear. The tenant did try to be practical and repair the holes herself during the tenancy. I explained that it is best not to do this without prior consent of the landlord and only if confident of doing the repair to a high standard as the cost to re-do it can be more than the original damage. In this case, I find that the landlord would have been liable to repair the door handle holes so it is not unfair that it meets the remedial cost after the tenancy ended. c. Lounge/kitchen walls: The exit photos show only very minor dents in about three spots. The landlord has not proven that the damage is more than wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. d. Lounge curtain rails: This claim is dismissed as per the paragraph above. e. Replace toilet roll holder and fix tenant patch and paint: The landlord did not prove that the toilet roll holder falling off the wall was anything more than wear and tear from normal use. This claim is dismissed. The tenant patched a hole caused by the door handle hitting the wall (photo 97) and this is visible. The ingoing photo shows a doorstop (photo 175) however the tenant says that this was removed by builders when the toilet floor was replaced. I accept her evidence. The original damage is not her fault and for the reasons above, the claim to remedy the tenant’s repair is dismissed. f. Hallway: one dent was present before this tenancy (photo 210). The other damage was caused by the door handle hitting the wall (photo 142) which is a failing in the doorstop. This claim is dismissed. g. Bedroom 1: The outgoing photos do not show any damage, so this claim is dismissed. h. Bedroom 2: The outgoing photos do not show any damage, so this claim is dismissed. i. Garage wall: The tenant accepts that she filled, and patch-painted holes left where she removed a shelf that she had installed during the tenancy but that the paint is a different shade. The photos do not show any other damage. The garage wall would have been affected by wear and tear over the tenancy, so I consider the paint patches left by the tenant to be inconsequential in a garage. This claim is dismissed. j. Bathroom: the invoice says this work was to remove six gib anchors and repair the wall. The outgoing photos do not show any damage, so this claim is dismissed.

Repair to bath: I dismiss this claim. The landlord supplied a photo of a small crack in the surface of the bath (near the plughole) which it says appeared during the tenancy and an invoice for $285.00. The tenant supplied emails and photos from October 2020 proving that a small hole in the surface of the bath was repaired in a similar place but that the repair did not last. The repair company inspected and concluded that the damage was superficial and did not require repair. On balance, I am not satisfied that the landlord’s photo shows any new damage. The claim is dismissed.

Remove tape from rangehood and pink marks in bathroom: I award this claim as the landlord proved that extra cleaning was needed to remove sticky tape residue from the glass rangehood, a pink stain on the lino near the shower and a few spots on the bath. The tenant says the pink stain seemed to leak through after new lino was laid during the tenancy. This means it might not be caused by her. However, in the absence of evidence that this had been noticed in inspections or raised with the landlord, the damage is proven. I award the claim of $109.25. Conclusion, filing fee, suppression of names

The tenant pointed out that she was sent three different lists of items that the landlord said needed attention after the tenancy and that she had a reasonable explanation for all of these. My decisions show that I agree with her.

This tenancy was over four and a half years in duration. The tenant has paid $117,199.29 in rent over that time. The rent ledger shows that rent was always in advance.

Houses are for living in and this is what the tenant and her children did. The tenant says that she improved the garden and received thank you notes after inspections. Any landlord who has only to repair minor dents in walls and holes from doorhandles, and normal wear and tear such as door seals on ageing appliances or toilet roll holders coming off the wall, is usually more than content.

I award the tenant her filing fee and suppress her name as she has been substantially successful. The landlord has not been, so I do not suppress its name.

The bond is refunded as per the orders. Amendment Order

The original order was issued in the name of the tenant and the landlord’s agent.

The landlord’s agent contacted the Tribunal after the first order was issued and requested that the landlord’s name be added to the order. I have amended the order as sought.

Order

(CORRIGENDUM)

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4875303 — net $227.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Key replacement	$28.25		Key replacement
Repairs: dishwasher seal	$110.42		Repairs: dishwasher seal
Cleaning: tape, pink on vinyl	$109.25		13. Remove tape from rangehood and pink marks in bathroom: I award this claim as the landlord proved that extra cleaning was needed to remove sticky tape resid…
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$247.92	$20.44
Net award	$227.48
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$227.48

This order amends an order dated 29 October 2024 by amending the name of the landlord.

ORIGINAL ORDER

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Glasshouse Property Management Limited As Agent For Annelee Scott $227.48 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearings (the landlord by its agents). This is a dispute about refund of the bond and end of tenancy costs. The law on tenant obligations and damage claims

If a landlord proves damage during the tenancy that is more than wear and tear, then the tenant must prove that the damage is not careless or intentional.

Rent: The tenancy ended on 19 April 2024 with no rent owing.

This tenancy was over four and a half years in duration. The tenant has paid $117,199.29 in rent over that time. The rent ledger shows that rent was always in advance.

I award the tenant her filing fee and suppress her name as she has been substantially successful. The landlord has not been, so I do not suppress its name.

The bond is refunded as per the orders. Amendment Order

The original order was issued in the name of the tenant and the landlord’s agent.

The landlord’s agent contacted the Tribunal after the first order was issued and requested that the landlord’s name be added to the order. I have amended the order as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4875303 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4875303 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

ORIGINAL ORDER

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

ORIGINAL ORDER

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions