What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4879500?

The tribunal order states: Matt Kelland and Poriana Luke are to pay Marie Nott $1,792.94 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4879500?

Cleaning: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $315.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Gardening: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Repaint Bathroom/Toilet Ceilings: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Vanity: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4879500?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4879500?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10619886-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4879500?

The tribunal order states: Matt Kelland and Poriana Luke are to pay Marie Nott $1,792.94 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4879500?

Cleaning: $215.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $315.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Gardening: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Repaint Bathroom/Toilet Ceilings: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Replace Vanity: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4879500?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4879500?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10619886-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11A Pamela Place, Otumoetai, Tauranga 3110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4879500 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4879500 — net $1,792.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$215.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$315.00	Cleaning
Gardening	$25.00	Gardening
Replace vanity	$550.00	Replace vanity
Repaint bathroom/toilet ceilings	$517.50	Repaint bathroom/toilet ceilings
Repairs	$150.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,792.94
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,792.94

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, partial refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants 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 (s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

The tenants agreed with the claims for carpet cleaning and gardening, and they did not seriously dispute the claim for general cleaning. The claims are supported by photographic evidence and are reasonable.

Are the tenants 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 (s 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA).

Where the damage is careless, s 49B RTA applies. Where the damage is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (s 49B(3)(a) RTA).

The following damage was caused during the tenancy:

Stove hinges: At the end of the tenancy the landlord found that the stove door did not close properly. The stove is about 4 years old. The landlord had to replace both hinges and two components associated with the hinges. She says the technician told her he had never had to replace all four parts before. The tenants say the stove door worked fine and they were not aware it did not close properly.

There is photographic evidence to show the door did not close properly. However, it is not clear whether the damage to the hinges resulted from a manufacturing defect or tenant damage. Although it would be reasonable to expect hinges to last longer than four years, not all manufactured products last as long as expected. In short, there is insufficient supporting evidence to exclude fair wear and tear.

Vanity: The basin in the vanity cracked during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not been able to disprove carelessness (they say they do not know how it occurred). The claim is therefore proved.

Bathroom and toilet ceilings: The landlord says the ceilings in both rooms were covered in a sticky substance, and the paint had started to peel in the bathroom. She believes this was due to a lack of ventilation.

The tenants say they closed the window during showering for privacy and used the extractor fan. They acknowledge that the residue in the toilet was likely caused by air freshener. In the bathroom it was most likely caused by substances in the water vapour. They say droplets of water collected on the ceiling when showering.

The peeling paint could be caused by a lack of ventilation or poor painting and preparation when the house was refurbished before the start of the tenancy. However, the landlord says the painting was done professionally, with the ceiling stripped, re-plastered, primed, and painted. Although professional painting does not guarantee success, in the absence of any contrary evidence, it is reasonable to expect a paint finish to last more than two years. The claim is therefore proved.

General repairs: The tenants accept the damage in the lounge. The landlord did not pursue the repairs in the wardrobe and laundry wall, as the damage most likely resulted from wall anchors giving way. The claim for the doors is proved, but there is insufficient evidence for the sliding door rail and remote bracket. This aspect of the claim is therefore reduced to $150.00.

Because the landlord has largely succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. J P Smith 24 July 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4879500 — net $1,792.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$215.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$315.00	Cleaning
Gardening	$25.00	Gardening
Replace vanity	$550.00	Replace vanity
Repaint bathroom/toilet ceilings	$517.50	Repaint bathroom/toilet ceilings
Repairs	$150.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,792.94
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,792.94

Order

Matt Kelland and Poriana Luke are to pay Marie Nott $1,792.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (3496975-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Marie Nott: $1,792.94 Matt Kelland and Poriana Luke: $527.06

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, partial refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants 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 (s 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
The tenants agreed with the claims for carpet cleaning and gardening, and they did not seriously dispute the claim for general cleaning. The claims are supported by photographic evidence and are reasonable.

Are the tenants 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 (s 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA).
Where the damage is careless, s 49B RTA applies. Where the damage is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (s 49B(3)(a) RTA).
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Stove hinges: At the end of the tenancy the landlord found that the stove door did not close properly. The stove is about 4 years old. The landlord had to replace both hinges and two components associated with the hinges. She says the technician told her he had never had to replace all four parts before. The tenants say the stove door worked fine and they were not aware it did not close properly.
There is photographic evidence to show the door did not close properly. However, it is not clear whether the damage to the hinges resulted from a manufacturing defect or tenant damage. Although it would be reasonable to expect hinges to last longer than four years, not all manufactured products last as long as expected. In short, there is insufficient supporting evidence to exclude fair wear and tear.
Vanity: The basin in the vanity cracked during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not been able to disprove carelessness (they say they do not know how it occurred). The claim is therefore proved.
Bathroom and toilet ceilings: The landlord says the ceilings in both rooms were covered in a sticky substance, and the paint had started to peel in the bathroom. She believes this was due to a lack of ventilation.
The tenants say they closed the window during showering for privacy and used the extractor fan. They acknowledge that the residue in the toilet was likely caused by air freshener. In the bathroom it was most likely caused by substances in the water vapour. They say droplets of water collected on the ceiling when showering.
The peeling paint could be caused by a lack of ventilation or poor painting and preparation when the house was refurbished before the start of the tenancy. However, the landlord says the painting was done professionally, with the ceiling stripped, re-plastered, primed, and painted. Although professional painting does not guarantee success, in the absence of any contrary evidence, it is reasonable to expect a paint finish to last more than two years. The claim is therefore proved.
General repairs: The tenants accept the damage in the lounge. The landlord did not pursue the repairs in the wardrobe and laundry wall, as the damage most likely resulted from wall anchors giving way. The claim for the doors is proved, but there is insufficient evidence for the sliding door rail and remote bracket. This aspect of the claim is therefore reduced to $150.00.
Because the landlord has largely succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. J P Smith 24 July 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4879500 — Cleanliness at 11A Pamela Place, Otumoetai, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4879500 — Cleanliness at 11A Pamela Place, Otumoetai, Tauranga 3110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions