What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4953037?

The tribunal order states: Damith Niroshan Herath Herath Mudiyanselage and Dinuka Gunawardena to

How much money was awarded in case 4953037?

Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $153.33 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953037?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953037?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11141568-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4953037?

The tribunal order states: Damith Niroshan Herath Herath Mudiyanselage and Dinuka Gunawardena to

How much money was awarded in case 4953037?

Cleaning: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $153.33 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953037?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953037?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11141568-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Akiraho Lane, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4953037 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953037 — net $210.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$57.50	Cleaning
Wall repairs and painting	$153.33	Wall repairs and painting
Net award	$210.83
Bond	$632.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$210.83

Damith Niroshan Herath Herath Mudiyanselage and Dinuka Gunawardena to pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as agent for L Jin $210.83 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $632.50 (6439314-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Grenadier Rent Shop Limited As Agent For L Jin: $210.83 Damith Niroshan Herath Herath Mudiyanselage and Dinuka Gunawardena: $421.67

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy commenced in February 2022 and ended in June 2024. A mediation has already been held, with several issues between the parties resolved. As a result, most of the bond has also been paid out to the parties, an amount of $632.50 remains in bond until the remaining issues are determined by the Tribunal.

The remaining issues between the parties are cleaning and damage to the walls.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises clean and tidy. They have provided photographs of the oven, dishwasher and bench that they say required further cleaning.

The tenant claims that they cleaned the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and that the cleaning costs incurred by the landlord are due to the property being put on the market after the tenancy and wanting it to be of a higher standard than is required by the RTA.

I am satisfied that the oven and dishwasher required some further cleaning. The rest of the property appears to be left in a reasonably clean and tidy condition in accordance with the RTA. The invoice provided for cleaning includes a total of three hours cleaning at the property, and there is no breakdown on the specific items included.

Considering the oven did require cleaning, I am satisfied that the tenant should contribute to the cost for this. Accordingly, I have awarded the equivalent of one hour of cleaning, being $57.50.

The amount ordered is proved.

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.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

The landlord claims that the walls were damaged throughout the premises and photographs have been provided. On many of the walls, blue post it notes have been placed next to what the landlord submitted were marks. There are however, two more prominent indents made by children’s drawings which can be clearly seen in the photographs.

The tenant submits that most of the marks on the wall are fair wear and tear, and a result of a two-year tenancy, although they do accept responsibility for one of the children’s drawings. They again submit that the landlord wanted to ready the property for sale, and the costs claimed against them was to bring the property to sale standard. They say that if the property was to be reletting, most of these costs would not have been incurred.

An invoice has been provided for the wall repair and painting of $460.00.

I am satisfied that the damage caused by the children’s drawings is more than fair wear and tear. However, the other alleged marks on the wall appear to be a reasonable amount of fair wear and tear and I find that the tenant is not liable for their rectification.

The wall repair and painting invoice does not provide a breakdown of the cost. As the two children’s drawings likely required the most plastering, however, I have awarded to the landlord one third of the total cost claimed, being $153.33.

The amount ordered is proved.

I have not reimbursed the filing fee, as although the landlord has had some success, so has the tenant in respect of the reducing the claims made against them, and the landlord has not in my view met the standard of substantial success. R Harvey-Lane 29 November 2024

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953037 — net $210.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$57.50	Cleaning
Wall repairs and painting	$153.33	Wall repairs and painting
Net award	$210.83
Bond	$632.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$210.83

Damith Niroshan Herath Herath Mudiyanselage and Dinuka Gunawardena to pay Grenadier Rent Shop Limited as agent for L Jin $210.83 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The remaining issues between the parties are cleaning and damage to the walls.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises clean and tidy. They have provided photographs of the oven, dishwasher and bench that they say required further cleaning.

Considering the oven did require cleaning, I am satisfied that the tenant should contribute to the cost for this. Accordingly, I have awarded the equivalent of one hour of cleaning, being $57.50.

The amount ordered is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

An invoice has been provided for the wall repair and painting of $460.00.

The amount ordered is proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953037 — Property damage at 8 Akiraho Lane, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953037 — Property damage at 8 Akiraho Lane, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

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