What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4955999?

The tribunal order states: Kiwi Adrian Farrell must pay Christchurch Methodist Central Mission $2,772.93

How much money was awarded in case 4955999?

Cleaning: $166.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $462.30 awarded to landlord; Front Door Frame: $126.50 awarded to landlord; Painting: $192.50 awarded to landlord; Plastering: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Replace 2 Doors: $213.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $284.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4955999?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10867821-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4955999?

The tribunal order states: Kiwi Adrian Farrell must pay Christchurch Methodist Central Mission $2,772.93

How much money was awarded in case 4955999?

Cleaning: $166.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $462.30 awarded to landlord; Front Door Frame: $126.50 awarded to landlord; Painting: $192.50 awarded to landlord; Plastering: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Replace 2 Doors: $213.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $284.63 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4955999?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4955999?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10867821-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 464 Hagley Avenue, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4955999 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4955999 — net $2,772.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Plastering	$600.00	Repairs: Plastering
Repairs: Painting	$192.50	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Front door frame	$126.50	Repairs: Front door frame
Repairs: Replace 2 doors	$213.25	Repairs: Replace 2 doors
Rubbish removal	$284.63	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$166.75	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$700.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$462.30	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,772.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,772.93

Ms Watson attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. The phone number for the tenant, Mr Farrell, the last three digits being 703, was called twice without any response. As the tenant was served, the hearing proceeded in his absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord said the tenancy ended on 3 July 2024 when the landlord was given immediate possession of the property by a Tribunal order dated 3 July 2024 in application 4897260.

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 landlord said the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photographs of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy, which included stained kitchen cupboards from rotting food, dirty kitchen cupboards and flooring, dirty oven, stained and dirty carpet throughout the premises, a large amount of rubbish left throughout the property, including in the kitchen and elsewhere.

The landlord provided an invoice for the cost of cleaning the whole property, which was for $1,364.48. The cleaning invoice was lengthy and included 14 hours of labour @ $52.00/hour for cleaning, but then added on separate charges for a standard oven clean, a standard window clean, $145.00 plus GST for cleaning the carpet, a separate one hour @ $60.00 for removing rubbish, labour time for remopping the kitchen floor after the gardener had spread mud on it, and $8.50 plus tax for the ‘cost of sliders’, which was not explained. Given that this was a relatively small unit property, and the evidence provided, I do not find this to be a reasonable cleaning cost to return the property to a tenant’s standard of a property that is reasonably clean and tidy. Given the photographic and other evidence provided of the condition of the unit at the end of the tenancy, I find a reasonable cost for cleaning the carpet to be $145.00 plus GST for a sub-total of $166.75. I find $700.00 inclusive of GST to be a more reasonable amount for cleaning the property in the condition it was according to the evidence. I note that the cleaning company invoice contained charges for dumping rubbish, which the landlord believed was already in the rubbish bins and could have been put out as general rubbish with a sticker to be collected. As such, I do not allow for this dumping fee for rubbish, nor for the rubbish removal cost, from the cleaning company, as these have been claimed elsewhere by the landlord and so have been duplicated.

The landlord claimed the cost of further rubbish removal by a separate company from the cleaning company, for removing beds and mattresses from the unit, for dumping the dirt from the garden that could not go through as green waste, and dumping fees for all that, for a total of $284.63. I find this to be a reasonable cost, given the evidence provided. Therefore, I award the landlord $284.63 for this rubbish removal work and dumping fees.

Therefore, I award the landlord $166.75 for cleaning the carpet, $700.00 for cleaning the property, and $284.63 for rubbish removal and dumping, for a total of $1,151.38.

The landlord also said the garden, which had had weed mat and wood chip on the edges before the tenancy, was overgrown with weeds, had not been maintained by the tenant and that part of the garden waste could not be dumped as green waste as it had other remnants of items scattered throughout the garden, as referred to above. The landlord provided photographs of the garden at the end of the tenancy, which showed overgrown weeds throughout the whole garden and along the fence line, and an old sofa. The landlord said the old sofa had to be cleared and dumped, the whole garden had to be weeded, mowed, and new weed mat and bark was put on the garden’s edges, as it had been at the start of the tenancy. The landlord said the cost of having this work done in the garden was $462.30, and provided an invoice confirming this. I find this to be a reasonable cost given the work that was required in the garden at the end of the tenancy and award the landlord $462.30 for having the garden work done in this regard.

The amounts ordered are 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.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Kitchen – damage to the wall b. Lounge – damage to the wall c. Bedroom 1 – damage to a wall and door d. Bedroom 2 – damage to the door e. Bathroom – damage to the door f. Front door frame damaged

The landlord provided photographs of all the above damage claimed. There were a series of 3 holes in the kitchen wall photographs shown from around 4/5 inches wide to smaller sizes. From the photographs, the holes in the kitchen wall appear to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here.

From the photographs provided of the fist or foot size hole in the lounge wall, around 5 inches wide, this damage appears to be intentional on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here.

The photograph of the damage to bedroom 1 door showed that half the door was kicked in as only half a door was left in the photograph. A new door was required, according to the landlord. I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here.

The bedroom 1 hole in the wall was more of a scrape that, in my view, from the photograph, appeared to be more in the nature of fair wear and tear. As such, I dismiss the claim for the cost of addressing the scrape on the wall of bedroom 1.

The photograph of the door in bedroom 2 showed two holes, that were foot- sized, in the door, which I regard to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here. A new door was required, according to the landlord.

The photograph of the bathroom door indicated a dent, which had to be plastered. I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here.

The photograph of the front door showed a large, significant crack along the length of the door frame. The landlord said this affected the integrity of the frame and they believed it had been kicked in. I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenant. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in s.49B RTA does not apply here. I find a cost of 2 hours of labour @ $55.00/hour (the rate charged by the landlord’s repairer) plus GST, in the amount of $126.50 to be a reasonable amount for the landlord to repair the damaged front door frame and have it realigned to the door. Therefore, I award the landlord $126.50 to have the front door frame repaired.

The landlord estimated the cost of replacing the doors in bedroom 1 and bedroom 2 to be in the range of $75.00 each for the replacement doors, for the materials/doors only, for a sub-total of $150.00 for 2 doors. I find this to be a reasonable amount to replace two doors for materials, and also find 1 hour @ $55.00/hour plus GST, coming to $63.25, a reasonable amount for labour to replace these two doors. Therefore, I award the landlord $213.25 for materials and labour to replace the two doors.

The landlord provided an invoice for plastering and painting the bathroom door, the walls and ceiling in the bedroom and the walls in the lounge and kitchen and painting the two new bedroom doors, for a total amount of $1,725.00.

I find a reasonable cost of plastering and repairing each of the areas with holes or indents to be $150.00 per area, inclusive of GST. This does not include painting. As there were 4 areas involved – the kitchen wall, lounge wall, bedroom wall and bathroom door, this comes to $600.00.

Considering the evidence and the photographs provided of the holes, I find a reasonable cost for the landlord to paint the two new bedroom doors and paint the plastered areas, where the repairer’s hourly rate is $55.00/hour (as per the landlord’s provided invoice), to be 5 hours @ $55.00/hour for a sub-total of $275.00.

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.

The landlord said they believed the property was last painted between 2.5 years to 5 years ago, prior to the tenancy starting. Current depreciation guidelines estimate painted walls in a rental property is around 10 years. As such, I deduct the $275.00 cost I find reasonable to paint the two new doors and the plastered areas by 30% to an award of $192.50 for this painting work.

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

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because Christchurch Methodist Central Mission has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4955999 — net $2,772.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Plastering	$600.00	Repairs: Plastering
Repairs: Painting	$192.50	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Front door frame	$126.50	Repairs: Front door frame
Repairs: Replace 2 doors	$213.25	Repairs: Replace 2 doors
Rubbish removal	$284.63	Rubbish removal
Carpet Cleaning	$166.75	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning	$700.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$462.30	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,772.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,772.93

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Therefore, I award the landlord $166.75 for cleaning the carpet, $700.00 for cleaning the property, and $284.63 for rubbish removal and dumping, for a total of $1,151.38.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because Christchurch Methodist Central Mission has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955999 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 5, 464 Hagley Avenue, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4955999 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 5, 464 Hagley Avenue, Christchurch Central,

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

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

Frequently asked questions