What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4919214 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4919214?

Removal Of Trampoline: $97.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4919214?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4919214?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11421481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4919214 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4919214?

Removal Of Trampoline: $97.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4919214?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4919214?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11421481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15 Salmond Street, Hoon Hay, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4919214 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4919214 — net $97.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Removal of trampoline	$97.40	Removal of trampoline
Net award	$97.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$97.40

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Wongeoon Vast Limited $97.40 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference, with the assistance of a Samoan language interpreter.
This case concerns a dispute between the landlord and the tenants over compensation for alleged damage and costs incurred at the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 19 January 2019 and ended on 18 April 2024. After the tenants vacated the premises, the landlord filed an application seeking compensation for: • The cost of replacing a lost red wheelie bin ($120). • The cost of repairing damage to walls caused by the tenants’ children drawing on them in the bedrooms, laundry, and hallway ($1,265). • The cost of repairing a dented hallway door and repainting it ($115). • The cost of removing an abandoned trampoline left at the premises ($97.40).
The tenants were surprised by the landlord’s claims, as they believed that at the final inspection, when they returned the keys, the landlord was satisfied with the condition of the property. At that time, they recall maybe only the trampoline issue was mentioned. However, three weeks later, the landlord sent communication asserting several other claims, which the tenants found unexpected.
The landlord disputed the tenants’ account of the events, stating that during the final inspection (and previous ones), he had pointed out the excessive drawings on the walls. According to the landlord, the tenants acknowledged that their children were responsible and agreed to address the issue. He further noted that the outstanding issues to be resolved were subsequently communicated with the tenant soon after and provided email communication in support.
While the tenants expressed concern, the landlord retains the right to pursue the matter further. I acknowledge that some issues remained unresolved at the end of the tenancy and will address them in detail below. The relevant legal framework
The onus of proof rests with the landlord, who must establish their claims on the balance of probabilities.
The relevant legal provisions from the RTA are: • Section 40(1)(c) RTA: The tenant must keep the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. • Section 40 (1)(e) RTA: The tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and dispose of all rubbish and remove all personal items from the property at the end of the tenancy. • Section 40(2)(a) RTA: The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises. • Section 49B RTA: If careless damage occurs, the tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the cost of repairs or the landlord’s insurance excess. • Fair wear and tear: Tenants are not liable for gradual deterioration or minor marks expected from normal use. • Depreciation of paintwork: The Tribunal follows depreciation guidelines, which estimate a five-year useful life for interior paint.
Each claim will now be assessed against this legal framework.

Are the tenants liable for the lost wheelie bin?

The landlord seeks $120 for the replacement of a missing red wheelie bin.
The landlord states that during a 2023 inspection, he observed an excessive accumulation of rubbish at the property. When he asked the tenants about this, they admitted that their red wheelie bin was missing. The landlord asked whether they had reported this to the council, and they claimed they had. However, when he followed this up, the council confirmed that no record of such a request existed. The landlord argues that the tenants were responsible for ensuring the bin was not lost and that they failed to take appropriate steps to replace it.
The tenants dispute this claim. They state that from the start of the tenancy, the red bin was missing, and they had informed the landlord about this, but he took no action. They claim they did try to locate the bin, but when they contacted the council, they were told that bin replacement is the landlord’s responsibility.
I find the landlord’s evidence falls short in proving the tenants lost or disposed of the lost wheelie bin.
The landlord relies on the initial inspection report, which states that all three bins (yellow, green, and red) were present at the start of the tenancy. However, no photographic evidence was provided to confirm this. Furthermore, the property manager who attended the hearing was not involved at the start of the tenancy and could not verify the existence of all three bins.
The landlord argues that later inspection reports indicate that three bins were present until 2023, but there is no direct evidence that the tenants were responsible for the loss of the red bin.
Under section 40(1)(c) RTA, tenants must dispose of rubbish and leave the property tidy. However, under section 40(2)(b) RTA, tenants are not liable for loss unless it was caused carelessly or intentionally.
Bins can go missing for various reasons (e.g., theft, misplacement by neighbours). A missing bin, without clear evidence of tenant fault, does not automatically establish liability. Even if the bin was lost during the tenancy, this does not prove the tenants caused its loss. Additionally, councils often require owners of the property to replace missing bins.
For these reasons, this claim is dismissed.

Are the tenants liable for damage to the walls and door?

The landlord seeks $1,265 for repainting multiple walls (hallway wall ($325), bedroom wall ($380), laundry walls ($560)) and $115 for repairing a dented hallway door.
I acknowledge that there were likely damages to the walls, as claimed by the landlord, due to the tenants' children drawing on them. This is supported by the photographic evidence provided by the landlord. However, the tenants contend that the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy was poor and required significant repairs.
The initial inspection report cites pre-existing issues concerning the walls and doors. Specific notations include: •Lounge: "Marks Hole under switch" •Kitchen/Dining: "Holes Paintmarks" •Bathroom: "Pen Marks/Holes/Hooks" •Laundry: "Marks/Holes" •Bedroom 1: "Marks/Holes" •Bedroom 2: "Pins (unable to read) Marks" •Bedroom 3: "Marks/Pen Marks"
However, the initial inspection report does not include photographic evidence to document the property's condition at the start of the tenancy.
The property manager who attended the hearing was not the same individual who conducted the initial inspection, meaning they could not provide direct evidence of the property’s condition at the start of the tenancy. The property manager did refer to the previous manager’s comments about “marks” on the walls, which is distinct from drawings. The property manager also pointed out that the scribbles and drawings would have likely required more extensive work, characterising it as a significant defect beyond what would be considered fair wear and tear.
While there is evidence to suggest that there were pre-existing issues with the walls and doors, without photographic documentation from the start of the tenancy, I cannot definitively determine the extent to which the tenants should be held liable for the alleged damages.
It is also important to note that tenants are not responsible for replacing worn or old paint with new paint. According to the depreciation guidelines used by the Tribunal, which combine both commercial and Inland Revenue guidelines, the useful life of paintwork is estimated at 5 years. Given that the landlord took over management of the property in December 2015 and the tenants’ tenancy lasted for over 4 years, the paintwork is clearly well over 5 years old and subject to natural wear and tear. As such, compensation for the paintwork is not warranted.
Additionally, there were conflicting views presented regarding the alleged damage to the hallway door. Given the absence of clear evidence regarding the start-of- tenancy condition, or condition of the door throughout the tenants’ tenancy and the conflicting testimony, it is difficult to assess conclusively that the tenants caused the damage.
In light of the above considerations, I find the landlord’s claim has not been proved to the required standard. As such, the claims are dismissed.

Are the tenants liable for removing the abandoned trampoline?

The landlord seeks $97.40 for removing a trampoline left behind at the end of the tenancy.
Under section 40(1)(c) RTA, tenants must remove all personal property. Since the tenants admit they left the trampoline, they are liable for the removal cost.
This claim is granted, and the tenants must pay $97.40. Filing fee and suppression order
As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with the claims, I decline to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee. See section 102 RTA. The landlord did not seek a suppression order under section 95 RTA. However, given the tenants have successfully defended most of the landlord’s claims, I consider it reasonable to supress the tenants’ names.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4919214 — net $97.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Removal of trampoline	$97.40	Removal of trampoline
Net award	$97.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$97.40

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Wongeoon Vast Limited $97.40 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference, with the assistance of a Samoan language interpreter.
This case concerns a dispute between the landlord and the tenants over compensation for alleged damage and costs incurred at the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced on 19 January 2019 and ended on 18 April 2024. After the tenants vacated the premises, the landlord filed an application seeking compensation for: • The cost of replacing a lost red wheelie bin ($120). • The cost of repairing damage to walls caused by the tenants’ children drawing on them in the bedrooms, laundry, and hallway ($1,265). • The cost of repairing a dented hallway door and repainting it ($115). • The cost of removing an abandoned trampoline left at the premises ($97.40).
The tenants were surprised by the landlord’s claims, as they believed that at the final inspection, when they returned the keys, the landlord was satisfied with the condition of the property. At that time, they recall maybe only the trampoline issue was mentioned. However, three weeks later, the landlord sent communication asserting several other claims, which the tenants found unexpected.
The landlord disputed the tenants’ account of the events, stating that during the final inspection (and previous ones), he had pointed out the excessive drawings on the walls. According to the landlord, the tenants acknowledged that their children were responsible and agreed to address the issue. He further noted that the outstanding issues to be resolved were subsequently communicated with the tenant soon after and provided email communication in support.
While the tenants expressed concern, the landlord retains the right to pursue the matter further. I acknowledge that some issues remained unresolved at the end of the tenancy and will address them in detail below. The relevant legal framework
The onus of proof rests with the landlord, who must establish their claims on the balance of probabilities.
The relevant legal provisions from the RTA are: • Section 40(1)(c) RTA: The tenant must keep the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. • Section 40 (1)(e) RTA: The tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and dispose of all rubbish and remove all personal items from the property at the end of the tenancy. • Section 40(2)(a) RTA: The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises. • Section 49B RTA: If careless damage occurs, the tenant’s liability is limited to the lesser of the cost of repairs or the landlord’s insurance excess. • Fair wear and tear: Tenants are not liable for gradual deterioration or minor marks expected from normal use. • Depreciation of paintwork: The Tribunal follows depreciation guidelines, which estimate a five-year useful life for interior paint.
Each claim will now be assessed against this legal framework.

Are the tenants liable for the lost wheelie bin?

The landlord seeks $120 for the replacement of a missing red wheelie bin.
The landlord states that during a 2023 inspection, he observed an excessive accumulation of rubbish at the property. When he asked the tenants about this, they admitted that their red wheelie bin was missing. The landlord asked whether they had reported this to the council, and they claimed they had. However, when he followed this up, the council confirmed that no record of such a request existed. The landlord argues that the tenants were responsible for ensuring the bin was not lost and that they failed to take appropriate steps to replace it.
The tenants dispute this claim. They state that from the start of the tenancy, the red bin was missing, and they had informed the landlord about this, but he took no action. They claim they did try to locate the bin, but when they contacted the council, they were told that bin replacement is the landlord’s responsibility.
I find the landlord’s evidence falls short in proving the tenants lost or disposed of the lost wheelie bin.
The landlord relies on the initial inspection report, which states that all three bins (yellow, green, and red) were present at the start of the tenancy. However, no photographic evidence was provided to confirm this. Furthermore, the property manager who attended the hearing was not involved at the start of the tenancy and could not verify the existence of all three bins.
The landlord argues that later inspection reports indicate that three bins were present until 2023, but there is no direct evidence that the tenants were responsible for the loss of the red bin.
Under section 40(1)(c) RTA, tenants must dispose of rubbish and leave the property tidy. However, under section 40(2)(b) RTA, tenants are not liable for loss unless it was caused carelessly or intentionally.
Bins can go missing for various reasons (e.g., theft, misplacement by neighbours). A missing bin, without clear evidence of tenant fault, does not automatically establish liability. Even if the bin was lost during the tenancy, this does not prove the tenants caused its loss. Additionally, councils often require owners of the property to replace missing bins.
For these reasons, this claim is dismissed.

Are the tenants liable for damage to the walls and door?

The landlord seeks $1,265 for repainting multiple walls (hallway wall ($325), bedroom wall ($380), laundry walls ($560)) and $115 for repairing a dented hallway door.
I acknowledge that there were likely damages to the walls, as claimed by the landlord, due to the tenants' children drawing on them. This is supported by the photographic evidence provided by the landlord. However, the tenants contend that the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy was poor and required significant repairs.
The initial inspection report cites pre-existing issues concerning the walls and doors. Specific notations include: •Lounge: "Marks Hole under switch" •Kitchen/Dining: "Holes Paintmarks" •Bathroom: "Pen Marks/Holes/Hooks" •Laundry: "Marks/Holes" •Bedroom 1: "Marks/Holes" •Bedroom 2: "Pins (unable to read) Marks" •Bedroom 3: "Marks/Pen Marks"
However, the initial inspection report does not include photographic evidence to document the property's condition at the start of the tenancy.
The property manager who attended the hearing was not the same individual who conducted the initial inspection, meaning they could not provide direct evidence of the property’s condition at the start of the tenancy. The property manager did refer to the previous manager’s comments about “marks” on the walls, which is distinct from drawings. The property manager also pointed out that the scribbles and drawings would have likely required more extensive work, characterising it as a significant defect beyond what would be considered fair wear and tear.
While there is evidence to suggest that there were pre-existing issues with the walls and doors, without photographic documentation from the start of the tenancy, I cannot definitively determine the extent to which the tenants should be held liable for the alleged damages.
It is also important to note that tenants are not responsible for replacing worn or old paint with new paint. According to the depreciation guidelines used by the Tribunal, which combine both commercial and Inland Revenue guidelines, the useful life of paintwork is estimated at 5 years. Given that the landlord took over management of the property in December 2015 and the tenants’ tenancy lasted for over 4 years, the paintwork is clearly well over 5 years old and subject to natural wear and tear. As such, compensation for the paintwork is not warranted.
Additionally, there were conflicting views presented regarding the alleged damage to the hallway door. Given the absence of clear evidence regarding the start-of- tenancy condition, or condition of the door throughout the tenants’ tenancy and the conflicting testimony, it is difficult to assess conclusively that the tenants caused the damage.
In light of the above considerations, I find the landlord’s claim has not been proved to the required standard. As such, the claims are dismissed.

Are the tenants liable for removing the abandoned trampoline?

The landlord seeks $97.40 for removing a trampoline left behind at the end of the tenancy.
Under section 40(1)(c) RTA, tenants must remove all personal property. Since the tenants admit they left the trampoline, they are liable for the removal cost.
This claim is granted, and the tenants must pay $97.40. Filing fee and suppression order
As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful with the claims, I decline to order the other party to reimburse the filing fee. See section 102 RTA. The landlord did not seek a suppression order under section 95 RTA. However, given the tenants have successfully defended most of the landlord’s claims, I consider it reasonable to supress the tenants’ names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4919214 — Tenancy dispute at 15 Salmond Street, Hoon Hay, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4919214 — Tenancy dispute at 15 Salmond Street, Hoon Hay, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the lost wheelie bin?

Are the tenants liable for damage to the walls and door?

Are the tenants liable for removing the abandoned trampoline?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the lost wheelie bin?

Are the tenants liable for damage to the walls and door?

Are the tenants liable for removing the abandoned trampoline?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions