What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4900839 about?

The tribunal order states: Lucy Hammond and Simon Hammond must pay [The landlord/s] $774.13 from

How much money was awarded in case 4900839?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $110.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $243.69 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900839?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10759504-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4900839 about?

The tribunal order states: Lucy Hammond and Simon Hammond must pay [The landlord/s] $774.13 from

How much money was awarded in case 4900839?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $110.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $243.69 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4900839?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4900839?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10759504-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

4 Barrington Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4900839 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4900839 — net $774.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Bench repair	$110.00	Bench repair
Wall repair	$400.00	Wall repair
Rubbish removal	$243.69	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$774.13
Bond	$4,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$774.13

Order

Lucy Hammond and Simon Hammond must pay [The landlord/s] $774.13 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $774.13 Lucy Hammond and Simon Hammond: $3,625.87
The Tribunal Orders suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
Mr Paget is not a signatory to the tenancy agreement, but all parties agree that he is one of the landlords and should be included as such in the Order.
The tenants first filed application 4900839 seeking recovery of their bond.
The landlords then filed application 4934524, seeking compensation, part refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Although the tenants’ application was first filed, the hearing proceeded as substantively a claim by the landlords, for compensation from the bond.

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.
The tenants do not dispute the landlords’ claim for reimbursement of the costs for clearing away garden waste left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. They do however dispute the landlords’ claim that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlords’ claim centres around what they say was the need to have additional cleaning work done on the stove, rangehood and to clean lime scale off bathroom fittings.
As noted during the hearing, what constitutes “reasonably clean and tidy” is a subjective assessment. People have a range of individual standards and expectations.
The landlords have high standards and expectations, which they are entirely entitled to. They cannot however require the tenants to meet those standards beyond what would be reasonable.
Having had regard to the photographic evidence, the tenants’ evidence about the steps they took to leave the premises tidy and the landlord’s evidence about what they considered an unacceptable degree of cleaning of the premises, I do not find it proved that the tenants breached their obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy once their tenancy had ended.

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.
There is no suggestion that any damage was intentionally caused. Laminate Bench
Photographs show that there are 2 small chips on the end of a laminate bench in the kitchen.
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not, that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
This was only a tenancy of 3 ½ months, so the appropriate allowance for wear and tear is less than it might be for a longer tenancy.
I find that the damage to the bench was sufficiently significant and visible that the landlords are justified in the decision to have it repaired. I am satisfied on balance that the chips constitute damage rather than wear and tear.
As it was damage that occurred during the tenancy and there is no evidence of a cause for which the tenants would not be responsible, I find that the landlords should be compensated for the repair cost, as proved by the quote provided. Wall and bathroom windowsill repair.
The landlords have provided an invoice proving that they have paid $793.50 for “touch ups to wall in hallway, touch up to windowsill, extra touch ups”
Photographs provided by the landlord show some paint worn from the corner of a wall join, very small indentations to a wall and repainting of a bathroom windowsill.
The landlords say that damage was more than fair wear and tear. The tenants say the wall damage should be regarded as fair wear and tear and that, with the landlords’ consent the bathroom windowsill was adequately repainted where a diffuser had left a ring mark.
The photographs provided to not show visible damage to the bathroom windowsill at the end of the tenancy that needed repair.
Paint over the metal gib fixings on external wall corner joins as highly susceptible to wear. The evidence provided does not persuades me that the paint touch up of those areas was other than to address normal wear and tear.
The dents in the walls, although very small, appear more likely than not to have happened while furniture was being removed. On balance I find that it is damage the landlords are entitled to have repaired and they should be compensated for the repair cost.
I have made an estimation of the extent of the invoice paid by the landlords that relates to the wall damage I have found the tenants should pay compensation for.
As the landlords have had claims against the bond upheld, I reimburse their filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4900839 — net $774.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Bench repair	$110.00	Bench repair
Wall repair	$400.00	Wall repair
Rubbish removal	$243.69	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$774.13
Bond	$4,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$774.13

Order

Lucy Hammond and Simon Hammond must pay [The landlord/s] $774.13 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $774.13 Lucy Hammond and Simon Hammond: $3,625.87
The Tribunal Orders suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
Mr Paget is not a signatory to the tenancy agreement, but all parties agree that he is one of the landlords and should be included as such in the Order.
The tenants first filed application 4900839 seeking recovery of their bond.
The landlords then filed application 4934524, seeking compensation, part refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Although the tenants’ application was first filed, the hearing proceeded as substantively a claim by the landlords, for compensation from the bond.

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.
The tenants do not dispute the landlords’ claim for reimbursement of the costs for clearing away garden waste left at the premises at the end of the tenancy. They do however dispute the landlords’ claim that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlords’ claim centres around what they say was the need to have additional cleaning work done on the stove, rangehood and to clean lime scale off bathroom fittings.
As noted during the hearing, what constitutes “reasonably clean and tidy” is a subjective assessment. People have a range of individual standards and expectations.
The landlords have high standards and expectations, which they are entirely entitled to. They cannot however require the tenants to meet those standards beyond what would be reasonable.
Having had regard to the photographic evidence, the tenants’ evidence about the steps they took to leave the premises tidy and the landlord’s evidence about what they considered an unacceptable degree of cleaning of the premises, I do not find it proved that the tenants breached their obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy once their tenancy had ended.

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.
There is no suggestion that any damage was intentionally caused. Laminate Bench
Photographs show that there are 2 small chips on the end of a laminate bench in the kitchen.
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not, that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
This was only a tenancy of 3 ½ months, so the appropriate allowance for wear and tear is less than it might be for a longer tenancy.
I find that the damage to the bench was sufficiently significant and visible that the landlords are justified in the decision to have it repaired. I am satisfied on balance that the chips constitute damage rather than wear and tear.
As it was damage that occurred during the tenancy and there is no evidence of a cause for which the tenants would not be responsible, I find that the landlords should be compensated for the repair cost, as proved by the quote provided. Wall and bathroom windowsill repair.
The landlords have provided an invoice proving that they have paid $793.50 for “touch ups to wall in hallway, touch up to windowsill, extra touch ups”
Photographs provided by the landlord show some paint worn from the corner of a wall join, very small indentations to a wall and repainting of a bathroom windowsill.
The landlords say that damage was more than fair wear and tear. The tenants say the wall damage should be regarded as fair wear and tear and that, with the landlords’ consent the bathroom windowsill was adequately repainted where a diffuser had left a ring mark.
The photographs provided to not show visible damage to the bathroom windowsill at the end of the tenancy that needed repair.
Paint over the metal gib fixings on external wall corner joins as highly susceptible to wear. The evidence provided does not persuades me that the paint touch up of those areas was other than to address normal wear and tear.
The dents in the walls, although very small, appear more likely than not to have happened while furniture was being removed. On balance I find that it is damage the landlords are entitled to have repaired and they should be compensated for the repair cost.
I have made an estimation of the extent of the invoice paid by the landlords that relates to the wall damage I have found the tenants should pay compensation for.
As the landlords have had claims against the bond upheld, I reimburse their filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900839 — Property damage at 4 Barrington Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4900839 — Property damage at 4 Barrington Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant 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 tenant 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