What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4881211 about?

The tribunal order states: Christopher John MacIntosh and Grazia MacIntosh to pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4881211?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Hallway: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Painting In The Kitchen: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4881211?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4881211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11054863-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4881211 about?

The tribunal order states: Christopher John MacIntosh and Grazia MacIntosh to pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4881211?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Hallway: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Painting In The Kitchen: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4881211?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4881211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11054863-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

29 Cluny Road, Plimmerton, Porirua 5026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4881211 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4881211 — net $420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: hallway	$350.00	Repairs: hallway
Repairs: painting in the kitchen	$50.00	Repairs: painting in the kitchen
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$420.44
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$420.44

Christopher John MacIntosh and Grazia MacIntosh to pay [The landlord/s] $420.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $420.44 Christopher John MacIntosh and Grazia MacIntosh: $2,379.56

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

This tenancy has ended and the parties cannot decide how the bond should be refunded. The landlords have applied for compensation and the tenants do not agree to the claims.

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

When allowing 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.

There is a claim for repairs to the metal garage door. It is agreed evidence this was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord submitted that the damage resulted in a lower sale price after the end of the tenancy, although there is no supporting evidence about this. The tenant said there was a flood during the tenancy and he had to remove everything stored in the garage and stack it outside while the garage dried out. During the night a box fell on the garage door, causing the dents shown in the photo. It seems most likely to me that the box falling onto the door was the result of an accident rather than a lack of care. Tenants are not responsible for accidental damage. This claim is dismissed.

There is a claim for repairs to four lots of damage done to the hallway walls and ceiling. The tenant said the damage happened while moving out. He said they hired commercial movers to mitigate the risk of damaging the narrow hall. I have considered the photos. Given the four lots of damage it seems most likely to me that the movers lacked care. Because tenants are responsible for those at the house with their permission, these tenants are responsible for the careless damage. The amount claimed seems reasonable to me and is allowed.

There is a claim for repainting one of the kitchen walls after the tenant painted over command strip damage but used the wrong colour paint. This is either careless or intentional damage and the tenants should pay. The $50 claimed seems reasonable and it is allowed.

There is a claim for repairing “multiple holes” left after picture hooks were removed. The landlord provided a photo of two holes as an example. The tenant said he was very surprised by the claim because he went around the house at the end of the tenancy and filled and painted all the picture hook holes he could see. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord only had a photo showing two holes. The house could have been rented out again without repairing these two holes. It seems most likely to me the holes were filled because of the sale. The landlord has not proved the claim for “multiple holes” and it is dismissed.

There is a claim for removing two pieces of metal screwed into the kitchen cabinets. I only have a photo showing one small square piece of metal screwed into a cupboard. The tenant was surprised by the photo and said it was possibly part of earthquake proofing for a bookcase. I am not persuaded there has been a loss because the metal piece is small and unobtrusive and has not affected functionality. The house could have been rented out again with the metal screwed to the cabinet but was probably repaired for the sale. This claim is dismissed.

There is a claim for $850 to replace multiple mature trees growing for up to 15- 20 years which the landlord said were removed or killed by the tenants. I gave the landlord until 1pm to provide a copy of the invoice for the new plants to prove the amount claimed. I did not receive the invoice and this claim is dismissed.

Two claims for holes were withdrawn at the hearing and the claim for a red mark was not discussed because it was no part of the original claim. Other orders

The request for the bond refund has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in names when tenants have to pay compensation at the end of the tenancy.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4881211 — net $420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: hallway	$350.00	Repairs: hallway
Repairs: painting in the kitchen	$50.00	Repairs: painting in the kitchen
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$420.44
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$420.44

Order

Christopher John MacIntosh and Grazia MacIntosh to pay [The landlord/s] $420.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $420.44 Christopher John MacIntosh and Grazia MacIntosh: $2,379.56
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy has ended and the parties cannot decide how the bond should be refunded. The landlords have applied for compensation and the tenants do not agree to the claims.

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. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
When allowing 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.
There is a claim for repairs to the metal garage door. It is agreed evidence this was damaged during the tenancy. The landlord submitted that the damage resulted in a lower sale price after the end of the tenancy, although there is no supporting evidence about this. The tenant said there was a flood during the tenancy and he had to remove everything stored in the garage and stack it outside while the garage dried out. During the night a box fell on the garage door, causing the dents shown in the photo. It seems most likely to me that the box falling onto the door was the result of an accident rather than a lack of care. Tenants are not responsible for accidental damage. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for repairs to four lots of damage done to the hallway walls and ceiling. The tenant said the damage happened while moving out. He said they hired commercial movers to mitigate the risk of damaging the narrow hall. I have considered the photos. Given the four lots of damage it seems most likely to me that the movers lacked care. Because tenants are responsible for those at the house with their permission, these tenants are responsible for the careless damage. The amount claimed seems reasonable to me and is allowed.
There is a claim for repainting one of the kitchen walls after the tenant painted over command strip damage but used the wrong colour paint. This is either careless or intentional damage and the tenants should pay. The $50 claimed seems reasonable and it is allowed.
There is a claim for repairing “multiple holes” left after picture hooks were removed. The landlord provided a photo of two holes as an example. The tenant said he was very surprised by the claim because he went around the house at the end of the tenancy and filled and painted all the picture hook holes he could see. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord only had a photo showing two holes. The house could have been rented out again without repairing these two holes. It seems most likely to me the holes were filled because of the sale. The landlord has not proved the claim for “multiple holes” and it is dismissed.
There is a claim for removing two pieces of metal screwed into the kitchen cabinets. I only have a photo showing one small square piece of metal screwed into a cupboard. The tenant was surprised by the photo and said it was possibly part of earthquake proofing for a bookcase. I am not persuaded there has been a loss because the metal piece is small and unobtrusive and has not affected functionality. The house could have been rented out again with the metal screwed to the cabinet but was probably repaired for the sale. This claim is dismissed.
There is a claim for $850 to replace multiple mature trees growing for up to 15- 20 years which the landlord said were removed or killed by the tenants. I gave the landlord until 1pm to provide a copy of the invoice for the new plants to prove the amount claimed. I did not receive the invoice and this claim is dismissed.
Two claims for holes were withdrawn at the hearing and the claim for a red mark was not discussed because it was no part of the original claim. Other orders
The request for the bond refund has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ application for suppression is not allowed because there is public interest in names when tenants have to pay compensation at the end of the tenancy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4881211 — Property damage at 29 Cluny Road, Plimmerton, Porirua 5026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4881211 — Property damage at 29 Cluny Road, Plimmerton, Porirua 5026

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions