What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4933793 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenants] to pay A1 Property Managers Limited and CRS Property Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4933793?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933793?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10927292-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4933793 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenants] to pay A1 Property Managers Limited and CRS Property Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4933793?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933793?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933793?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10927292-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4933793 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933793 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair walls	$1,000.00	Repair walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Bond	$2,380.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,027.00

[The tenants] to pay A1 Property Managers Limited and CRS Property Limited $1,027.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited and CRS Property Limited: $1,027.00 [The tenants]: $1,353.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Roborgh and Ms Edwards represented the landlord.

The tenants applied for payment of the bond and the landlord cross applied for the cost to paint two walls at the premises.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenants did not dispute that they caused damage to two walls at the premises, one in the hall and one in the lounge and they did not dispute that they attempted to repair the damage before the tenancy ended on 10 June 2024. However, the landlord claims that the repairs were not completed to a workmanlike standard and they claim the sum of $1,500.00 to remedy the repairs and paint the two walls.

The tenants claim that the landlord ought to have inspected the repairs/damage before the tenancy ended to ensure that it was up to the required standard and, if it was not, give them the opportunity to return to complete further repairs or make other arrangements to do so at a lesser cost. However, the obligation is on the tenants to ensure that damage for which they are responsible is repaired to a workmanlike standard before the tenancy ends. If they do not do so, then the landlord is entitled to have the repair completed by their own contractor and claim the reasonable costs from the tenants. The landlord does not have to give the tenants the opportunity to return after the tenancy has ended to complete the work themselves or by their own contractor.

I have no hesitation in finding on the evidence before me, but in particular the photographs provided by the landlord, that the repairs by the tenants were not completed to a workmanlike or reasonable standard. I am also not satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to establish that the property manager for the tenancy (Ms Roborgh) agreed to allow them to return to the premises after the tenancy had ended to complete any additional work that may be required (as suggested by the tenants).

I therefore find the tenants liable for the cost to repair and paint the two walls. However, I am required to take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. After taking into account the age of the walls (Ms Roborgh thought that the walls were last painted approximately 4 years ago) and their condition at the tenancy commencement I have reduced the amount claimed by a third account for betterment and depreciation.

The landlord has been successful in its claim and is therefore entitled to the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

The tenants applied, in their application, for name suppression.

Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in their defence to the claim. However, section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of that party be suppressed.

I consider that this is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion in the tenants’ favour and order suppression of her name and identifying details. The claim is relatively minor in both their extent and nature and in the circumstances, I do not consider there is any public interest in their names being published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4933793 — net $1,027.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair walls	$1,000.00	Repair walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,027.00
Bond	$2,380.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,027.00

Order

[The tenants] to pay A1 Property Managers Limited and CRS Property Limited $1,027.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited and CRS Property Limited: $1,027.00 [The tenants]: $1,353.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Roborgh and Ms Edwards represented the landlord.
The tenants applied for payment of the bond and the landlord cross applied for the cost to paint two walls at the premises.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenants did not dispute that they caused damage to two walls at the premises, one in the hall and one in the lounge and they did not dispute that they attempted to repair the damage before the tenancy ended on 10 June 2024. However, the landlord claims that the repairs were not completed to a workmanlike standard and they claim the sum of $1,500.00 to remedy the repairs and paint the two walls.
The tenants claim that the landlord ought to have inspected the repairs/damage before the tenancy ended to ensure that it was up to the required standard and, if it was not, give them the opportunity to return to complete further repairs or make other arrangements to do so at a lesser cost. However, the obligation is on the tenants to ensure that damage for which they are responsible is repaired to a workmanlike standard before the tenancy ends. If they do not do so, then the landlord is entitled to have the repair completed by their own contractor and claim the reasonable costs from the tenants. The landlord does not have to give the tenants the opportunity to return after the tenancy has ended to complete the work themselves or by their own contractor.
I have no hesitation in finding on the evidence before me, but in particular the photographs provided by the landlord, that the repairs by the tenants were not completed to a workmanlike or reasonable standard. I am also not satisfied that the tenants have provided sufficient evidence to establish that the property manager for the tenancy (Ms Roborgh) agreed to allow them to return to the premises after the tenancy had ended to complete any additional work that may be required (as suggested by the tenants).
I therefore find the tenants liable for the cost to repair and paint the two walls. However, I am required to take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. After taking into account the age of the walls (Ms Roborgh thought that the walls were last painted approximately 4 years ago) and their condition at the tenancy commencement I have reduced the amount claimed by a third account for betterment and depreciation.
The landlord has been successful in its claim and is therefore entitled to the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
The tenants applied, in their application, for name suppression.
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The tenants have not been wholly or substantially successful in their defence to the claim. However, section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of that party be suppressed.
I consider that this is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion in the tenants’ favour and order suppression of her name and identifying details. The claim is relatively minor in both their extent and nature and in the circumstances, I do not consider there is any public interest in their names being published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933793 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933793 — Property damage

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

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

Frequently asked questions