What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4920213?

The tribunal order states: Joe Patelesio must pay Ihome Property Management Limited $4,770.44

How much money was awarded in case 4920213?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Clothing Line: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Food Waste Disposer Air Switch: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Internal Door: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinets: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Paper Holder: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $4,830.00 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe: $450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920213?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11189075-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4920213?

The tribunal order states: Joe Patelesio must pay Ihome Property Management Limited $4,770.44

How much money was awarded in case 4920213?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Clothing Line: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Food Waste Disposer Air Switch: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Internal Door: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cabinets: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Paper Holder: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $4,830.00 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe: $450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4920213?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4920213?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11189075-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50 Bordeaux Parade, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4920213 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4920213 — net $4,770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: walls	$4,830.00	Repairs: walls
Repairs: garage door	$250.00	Repairs: garage door
Repairs: clothing line	$220.00	Repairs: clothing line
Repairs: food waste disposer air switch	$150.00	Repairs: food waste disposer air switch
Repairs: kitchen cabinets	$450.00	Repairs: kitchen cabinets
Repairs: toilet paper holder	$40.00	Repairs: toilet paper holder
Repairs: internal door	$700.00	Repairs: internal door
Repairs: wardrobe	$450.00	Repairs: wardrobe
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,770.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,770.44

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.

On 6 September 2024, I made an order requiring the Notice of Hearing to be sent to the tenant at their new residential address. This has occurred. Therefore, I am satisfied the tenant has been appropriately served with the Notice of Hearing.

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

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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 landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not return the garage door remote at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for $150.00 for a new garage door remote. I accept the landlord’s evidence and grant their claim for compensation for $150.00 in full.

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.

The landlord did not provide photographs of the property taken at the beginning of the tenancy. Ihome Property Management Ltd took over this tenancy halfway through and did not obtain a copy of the entry inspection report from the previous property management company.

The landlord provided photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show a significant number of marks and scribbles throughout the interior of the proprety. There are also photographs of damaged walls, doors and cabinetry. The landlord gave evidence that the food waste disposer air switch was broken and produced a photograph confirming the same. The landlord also gave evidence that the garage door was broken and would not roll up or down.

The landlord said that the property was newly painted in 2022 when the owner attempted to sell it. It did not sell and therefore, the owner rented it out instead.

Based on the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy and oral evidence given by the landlord, I find that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Extensive marks and drawings throughout the inside of the property and garage b. Broken clothing line c. Damaged bedroom door (x1) d. Damaged garage door e. Damaged food waste disposer air switch f. Damaged kitchen cabinets g. Toilet paper holder removed h. Damaged wardrobe

The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.

The landlord provided an invoice for $7,790.00 to attend to the above repairs. The break down for each item is as follows: a. Internal painting:$4,830.00 b. Garage door repair:$250.00 c. Clothing line:$220.00 d. Food waster disposer air switch:$150.00 e. Kitchen cabinets repair:$450.00 f. Toilet paper holder:$40.00 g. Internal door change:$1,400.00 h. Wardrobe repaid:$450.00

The landlord claims two internal doors were damaged and needed to be replaced however, they only produced photographic evidence of damage to one internal door. Therefore, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a second door was damaged during the tenancy and needed to be replaced.

At the hearing I indicated that I would grant a portion of the invoice for internal painting however, upon reflection and closer inspection of the photographs provided by the landlord, I am satisfied that the damage to the internal walls and doors of the house was of such a nature as to justify the entire house being repainted inside. There were numerous marks on the walls in the garage and a large number of scribbles and drawings throughout the house. There are also parts of the wall where the jib has been damaged or paint peeled off. The landlord gave evidence that they tried to clean the walls, but it did not work. The landlord gave evidence that the damage to the walls was so extensive, it made more sense to repaint the entire house than complete multiple patch repairs. Having reviewed the photographs, I accept this submission.

The landlord’s claims for compensation for damage are granted for the following amounts: a. Internal painting:$4,830.00 b. Garage door repair:$250.00 c. Clothing line:$220.00 d. Food waster disposer air switch:$150.00 e. Kitchen cabinets repair:$450.00 f. Toilet paper holder:$40.00 g. Internal door change:$700.00 h. Wardrobe repaid:$450.00

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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. 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. Filing fee

Because Ihome Property Management Limited Anna Dong has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4920213 — net $4,770.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: walls	$4,830.00	Repairs: walls
Repairs: garage door	$250.00	Repairs: garage door
Repairs: clothing line	$220.00	Repairs: clothing line
Repairs: food waste disposer air switch	$150.00	Repairs: food waste disposer air switch
Repairs: kitchen cabinets	$450.00	Repairs: kitchen cabinets
Repairs: toilet paper holder	$40.00	Repairs: toilet paper holder
Repairs: internal door	$700.00	Repairs: internal door
Repairs: wardrobe	$450.00	Repairs: wardrobe
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,770.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,770.44

Order

Joe Patelesio must pay Ihome Property Management Limited $4,770.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,340.00 (6364408-003) to Ihome Property Management Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
On 6 September 2024, I made an order requiring the Notice of Hearing to be sent to the tenant at their new residential address. This has occurred. Therefore, I am satisfied the tenant has been appropriately served with the Notice of Hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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 landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not return the garage door remote at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice for $150.00 for a new garage door remote. I accept the landlord’s evidence and grant their claim for compensation for $150.00 in full.

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.
The landlord did not provide photographs of the property taken at the beginning of the tenancy. Ihome Property Management Ltd took over this tenancy halfway through and did not obtain a copy of the entry inspection report from the previous property management company.
The landlord provided photographs of the property taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show a significant number of marks and scribbles throughout the interior of the proprety. There are also photographs of damaged walls, doors and cabinetry. The landlord gave evidence that the food waste disposer air switch was broken and produced a photograph confirming the same. The landlord also gave evidence that the garage door was broken and would not roll up or down.
The landlord said that the property was newly painted in 2022 when the owner attempted to sell it. It did not sell and therefore, the owner rented it out instead.
Based on the photographs taken at the end of the tenancy and oral evidence given by the landlord, I find that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Extensive marks and drawings throughout the inside of the property and garage b. Broken clothing line c. Damaged bedroom door (x1) d. Damaged garage door e. Damaged food waste disposer air switch f. Damaged kitchen cabinets g. Toilet paper holder removed h. Damaged wardrobe
The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability.
The landlord provided an invoice for $7,790.00 to attend to the above repairs. The break down for each item is as follows: a. Internal painting:$4,830.00 b. Garage door repair:$250.00 c. Clothing line:$220.00 d. Food waster disposer air switch:$150.00 e. Kitchen cabinets repair:$450.00 f. Toilet paper holder:$40.00 g. Internal door change:$1,400.00 h. Wardrobe repaid:$450.00
The landlord claims two internal doors were damaged and needed to be replaced however, they only produced photographic evidence of damage to one internal door. Therefore, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a second door was damaged during the tenancy and needed to be replaced.
At the hearing I indicated that I would grant a portion of the invoice for internal painting however, upon reflection and closer inspection of the photographs provided by the landlord, I am satisfied that the damage to the internal walls and doors of the house was of such a nature as to justify the entire house being repainted inside. There were numerous marks on the walls in the garage and a large number of scribbles and drawings throughout the house. There are also parts of the wall where the jib has been damaged or paint peeled off. The landlord gave evidence that they tried to clean the walls, but it did not work. The landlord gave evidence that the damage to the walls was so extensive, it made more sense to repaint the entire house than complete multiple patch repairs. Having reviewed the photographs, I accept this submission.
The landlord’s claims for compensation for damage are granted for the following amounts: a. Internal painting:$4,830.00 b. Garage door repair:$250.00 c. Clothing line:$220.00 d. Food waster disposer air switch:$150.00 e. Kitchen cabinets repair:$450.00 f. Toilet paper holder:$40.00 g. Internal door change:$700.00 h. Wardrobe repaid:$450.00
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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. 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. Filing fee
Because Ihome Property Management Limited Anna Dong has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920213 — Property damage at 50 Bordeaux Parade, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4920213 — Property damage at 50 Bordeaux Parade, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

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