What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4893265?

The tribunal order states: Megan Nichol, Christine Mary Nichol and Steven Anthony Gabriel must pay Ray

How much money was awarded in case 4893265?

Carpet: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $26.90 awarded to landlord; Glass Kitchen Cupboard: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Painting: $2,141.86 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe Door: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $862.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4893265?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4893265?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10655291-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4893265?

The tribunal order states: Megan Nichol, Christine Mary Nichol and Steven Anthony Gabriel must pay Ray

How much money was awarded in case 4893265?

Carpet: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $517.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $26.90 awarded to landlord; Glass Kitchen Cupboard: $189.75 awarded to landlord; Painting: $2,141.86 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe Door: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $862.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4893265?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4893265?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10655291-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Hornsey Avenue, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4893265 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4893265 — net $5,258.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$517.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$862.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: painting	$2,141.86	Repairs: painting
Repairs: wardrobe door	$350.00	Repairs: wardrobe door
Repairs: glass kitchen cupboard	$189.75	Repairs: glass kitchen cupboard
Carpet	$1,150.00	Carpet
Light bulbs/batteries	$26.90	Light bulbs/batteries
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,258.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,258.95

Order

Megan Nichol, Christine Mary Nichol and Steven Anthony Gabriel must pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited $5,258.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

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

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord claimed $450.00 + GST for cleaning and $750.00 + GST for rubbish removal. The tenant did not dispute these amounts. These claims are proved.

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.
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 landlord claimed $960.00 + GST to replace all the ceiling lights. No supporting information was provided for this claim. The tenant stated that during the tenancy there was an ongoing issue with light bulbs blowing for no reason, but at the end of the tenancy all of the lights were working. This claim is not proved.
The landlord claimed $7,450.00 + GST to plaster and repaint the inside of the house. The landlord provided photographs which show many of the walls to be marked with pen marks. The tenant accepted that people living at the property during her tenancy marked the walls, but stated the walls were not perfect at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant produced photographs which show some walls with small marks and chips to the plaster, and one wall with a crack to the plaster that she says were taken on 5 April 2021, at the beginning of the tenancy.
I find the damage caused by the tenant to be intentional damage.
The landlord was not sure when the house had been last redecorated, but she stated it was a few years before the tenancy began, and she reiterated the walls were in generally very good condition at the start of the tenancy.
The IRD Depreciation Guide does not give information on how long paint on walls is expected to last in a residential setting. I calculate that paint if treated well should last approximately eight years. The duration of this tenancy was just short of three years, and on the information provided by the landlord and the tenant I estimate the paint in this house was approximately three years old at the beginning of the tenancy. On that basis I calculate that the paint was 75% through its expected lifetime, and I award 25% of the cost claimed. The amount is proved.
The landlord claimed $1,000.00 + GST to replace one wardrobe door and rehang a second wardrobe door. The landlord provided photographs that showed little in support of this, but the tenant accepted one door did need replacing. The tenant questioned why so much was being charged for the replacement door. The landlord did not have any originating receipt other than the composite invoice provided by the company that undertook the full job.
I accept the tenant’s query, and whereas the need to replace the door is proved, the amount is not proved. I award a reduced amount of $350.00 as a result. I find the damage is careless damage. This amount is proved.
The landlord claimed $300.00 + GST to install a new bathroom door and lock. The tenant stated that the door handle and lock had been defective since the beginning of the tenancy and she had called the previous property manager several times regarding this problem. The property manager had sent workers to fix the problem, but they never succeeded. The tenant provided photographs from the beginning of the tenancy showing the door handle to be in poor condition. This claim is not proved.
The landlord claimed $330.00 + GST for two broken glass cupboard doors. The landlord produced a photograph in support. The tenant showed photographs taken from the beginning of the tenancy that show one glass cupboard door to be already broken. The tenant stated the other glass door was also already broken but she had misplaced the photograph that shows this.
I accept the landlord’s information regarding one broken glass door. I find the damage is careless and I award fifty percent of the claimed amount.
The landlord claimed $450.00 to replace and install some curtains. The landlord provided photographs showing a curtain with a torn backing, and photographs from an Entry condition report that show the same curtains, and no others, in excellent condition. The tenant disputed the claim saying the curtains were old and full of mildew from the beginning of the tenancy. She stated some of the curtains had small tears in them at the beginning of the tenancy and these got worse during the tenancy. Eventually she tore the torn backing from one of the curtains.
The Entry condition report is not dated and not signed and not completed, and I am not persuaded by it.
The claim for curtains is not proved.
The landlord claimed $4,600.00 for carpet and produced photographs from the beginning of the tenancy showing the carpet to be in good condition. The tenant produced photographs from the beginning of the tenancy showing some obvious stains and some wear marks in the carpet.
The landlord produced numerous photographs from the end of the tenancy that show the carpet in terrible condition with numerous varied stains. I have no hesitation in finding the carpet needed replacing. The amount of damage goes beyond careless; I find the damage to be intentional. However, I find the carpet was approximately six years old at the end of the tenancy and had a life span of eight years. I therefore award twenty five percent of the replacement cost. The claim is proved.
The landlord claimed $26.90 for a replacement battery for a remote control. The tenant does not dispute this amount. The amount is proved.
The landlord withdrew claims for a fence panel, the dishwasher, the oven door, the shower head, the tap, and a cupboard.
A 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4893265 — net $5,258.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$517.50	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$862.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: painting	$2,141.86	Repairs: painting
Repairs: wardrobe door	$350.00	Repairs: wardrobe door
Repairs: glass kitchen cupboard	$189.75	Repairs: glass kitchen cupboard
Carpet	$1,150.00	Carpet
Light bulbs/batteries	$26.90	Light bulbs/batteries
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,258.95
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,258.95

Order

Megan Nichol, Christine Mary Nichol and Steven Anthony Gabriel must pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited $5,258.95 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

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

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord claimed $450.00 + GST for cleaning and $750.00 + GST for rubbish removal. The tenant did not dispute these amounts. These claims are proved.

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.
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 landlord claimed $960.00 + GST to replace all the ceiling lights. No supporting information was provided for this claim. The tenant stated that during the tenancy there was an ongoing issue with light bulbs blowing for no reason, but at the end of the tenancy all of the lights were working. This claim is not proved.
The landlord claimed $7,450.00 + GST to plaster and repaint the inside of the house. The landlord provided photographs which show many of the walls to be marked with pen marks. The tenant accepted that people living at the property during her tenancy marked the walls, but stated the walls were not perfect at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant produced photographs which show some walls with small marks and chips to the plaster, and one wall with a crack to the plaster that she says were taken on 5 April 2021, at the beginning of the tenancy.
I find the damage caused by the tenant to be intentional damage.
The landlord was not sure when the house had been last redecorated, but she stated it was a few years before the tenancy began, and she reiterated the walls were in generally very good condition at the start of the tenancy.
The IRD Depreciation Guide does not give information on how long paint on walls is expected to last in a residential setting. I calculate that paint if treated well should last approximately eight years. The duration of this tenancy was just short of three years, and on the information provided by the landlord and the tenant I estimate the paint in this house was approximately three years old at the beginning of the tenancy. On that basis I calculate that the paint was 75% through its expected lifetime, and I award 25% of the cost claimed. The amount is proved.
The landlord claimed $1,000.00 + GST to replace one wardrobe door and rehang a second wardrobe door. The landlord provided photographs that showed little in support of this, but the tenant accepted one door did need replacing. The tenant questioned why so much was being charged for the replacement door. The landlord did not have any originating receipt other than the composite invoice provided by the company that undertook the full job.
I accept the tenant’s query, and whereas the need to replace the door is proved, the amount is not proved. I award a reduced amount of $350.00 as a result. I find the damage is careless damage. This amount is proved.
The landlord claimed $300.00 + GST to install a new bathroom door and lock. The tenant stated that the door handle and lock had been defective since the beginning of the tenancy and she had called the previous property manager several times regarding this problem. The property manager had sent workers to fix the problem, but they never succeeded. The tenant provided photographs from the beginning of the tenancy showing the door handle to be in poor condition. This claim is not proved.
The landlord claimed $330.00 + GST for two broken glass cupboard doors. The landlord produced a photograph in support. The tenant showed photographs taken from the beginning of the tenancy that show one glass cupboard door to be already broken. The tenant stated the other glass door was also already broken but she had misplaced the photograph that shows this.
I accept the landlord’s information regarding one broken glass door. I find the damage is careless and I award fifty percent of the claimed amount.
The landlord claimed $450.00 to replace and install some curtains. The landlord provided photographs showing a curtain with a torn backing, and photographs from an Entry condition report that show the same curtains, and no others, in excellent condition. The tenant disputed the claim saying the curtains were old and full of mildew from the beginning of the tenancy. She stated some of the curtains had small tears in them at the beginning of the tenancy and these got worse during the tenancy. Eventually she tore the torn backing from one of the curtains.
The Entry condition report is not dated and not signed and not completed, and I am not persuaded by it.
The claim for curtains is not proved.
The landlord claimed $4,600.00 for carpet and produced photographs from the beginning of the tenancy showing the carpet to be in good condition. The tenant produced photographs from the beginning of the tenancy showing some obvious stains and some wear marks in the carpet.
The landlord produced numerous photographs from the end of the tenancy that show the carpet in terrible condition with numerous varied stains. I have no hesitation in finding the carpet needed replacing. The amount of damage goes beyond careless; I find the damage to be intentional. However, I find the carpet was approximately six years old at the end of the tenancy and had a life span of eight years. I therefore award twenty five percent of the replacement cost. The claim is proved.
The landlord claimed $26.90 for a replacement battery for a remote control. The tenant does not dispute this amount. The amount is proved.
The landlord withdrew claims for a fence panel, the dishwasher, the oven door, the shower head, the tap, and a cupboard.
A 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4893265 — Property damage at 9 Hornsey Avenue, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4893265 — Property damage at 9 Hornsey Avenue, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions