What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4930253?

The tribunal order states: Shabir Ali is added as a respondent with the consent of the parties.

How much money was awarded in case 4930253?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4930253?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4930253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10702524-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4930253?

The tribunal order states: Shabir Ali is added as a respondent with the consent of the parties.

How much money was awarded in case 4930253?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4930253?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4930253?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10702524-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 Gallaghan Close, Wigram, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4930253 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4930253 — net $1,877.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair exterior cladding	$1,500.00	Repair exterior cladding
Repair lawn	$350.00	Repair lawn
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,877.00
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,877.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4930253 — net $1,877.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair exterior cladding	$1,500.00	Repair exterior cladding
Repair lawn	$350.00	Repair lawn
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,877.00
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,877.00

Order

Shabir Ali is added as a respondent with the consent of the parties.
Shabana Ali and Shabir Ali must pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited and William Van Schaijik $1,877.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (6429203-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Holmwood Real Estate Limited as agent for William Van Schaijik: $1,877.00 Shabana Ali and Shabir Ali: $643.00
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Brown represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims the cost to remedy the following damage: • Repair aluminium window and door frames: $4,663.25 • Repair bedroom and lounge walls and ceiling: $2,649.60 • Repair/re-stain exterior cladding: $3,197.00 • Repair lawn: $6,280.15
The landlord also claimed the cost ($640.00) to purchase and plant seven bushes, but Ms Brown withdrew that claim at the hearing.
The claim to repair the aluminium frames is dismissed because the landlord has not established the loss, if any, he has suffered as a result of the damage. The amount claimed is based on a quote for the repair. However, Ms Brown confirmed that the property has been sold and she was unsure whether the repair work was completed before the property was sold or whether it was sold at a reduced price because of the damage.
Ms Brown claims that the bedroom ceiling had a hole/dent (although she seemed unsure what the actual damage was), and the power points in the bedroom/lounge had been pushed in damaging the surrounding walls. She claims that the tenants had completed repairs but had touched up the area with a spray can and this had to be removed and the walls repaired and painted. The costs claimed include repair to walls in the garage, but Ms Brown withdrew that part of the claim because, she said, the damage was in existence at the tenancy commencement.
Mr and Mrs Ali dispute that there was any damage to the ceiling and walls as claimed. They said that they did not do any repairs to the walls or touched them up with spray paint.
I dismiss the claim to repair the ceiling and walls. I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to establish what exactly the damage is and whether it occurred during the tenancy. There were no photos provided of the damage and Ms Brown did not complete the final inspection and therefore could not give evidence to support the damage claimed. In addition, the pre tenancy inspection report signed by both parties notes some existing damage to walls in these rooms.
Mr and Mrs Ali accept that their puppy caused the damage to the exterior wooden cladding (scratches and gouges). The amount claimed has been established by the production of an invoice.
The amount claimed has been reduced to account for 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. Ms Brown thought the property was built approximately 10 years ago and it is unknown whether the cladding has been re-stained/re-painted since that time. I also note from the photographs that there is other damage (scrapes) which are inconsistent with a dog causing the damage (the scrapes are horizontal). Doing the best I can on the evidence before me I consider $1,500.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage caused by Mr and Mrs Ali’s puppy.
The landlord claims the cost ($6,280.15) to remove all the existing lawns (including the front lawn), relevel the areas and lay ready lawn (total area 127m2). The landlord claims that Mr and Mrs Ali’s puppy caused the damage to the back lawns, and they caused the damage to the front lawn by parking cars on the lawn.
Mr and Mrs Ali deny causing any damage to the front lawns and deny that they, or anyone else at the premises with their permission, parked on the lawn. I accept their evidence. There are no photographs provided of the front lawn and as mentioned Ms Brown did not see the property at the end of the tenancy. Ms Brown thought that the area of the front lawn is approximately 50m2. The claim to repair and relay the front lawn area is therefore dismissed.
Mr and Mrs Ali accept that their puppy caused the damage to the back lawns, but they say that they repaired the lawns by filling any holes, levelling the lawn and reseeding it approximately six to eight weeks before the tenancy ended. I accept their evidence. The photographs taken in February 2024 of the lawns compared with the photographs taken on 27 April show a marked improvement. However, I also accept that the photographs show that some areas, particularly near the rear of the property, require additional attention.
Again, taking into account betterment I consider the sum of $350.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for these areas. The photographs of the lawns taken at the start of the tenancy do not show perfect lawns. They show some weeds and some bare patches. There is therefore considerable betterment with the replacing of the entire lawn with ready lawn. In my view all that was required was some additional top dressing and the laying of more seed.
The landlord has been partially successful in his claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award him payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4930253 — Property damage at 25 Gallaghan Close, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4930253 — Property damage at 25 Gallaghan Close, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants 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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions