What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4956354 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4956354?

Bedroom Two: Curtains: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Remove And Dispose Alterations: $1,811.25 awarded to landlord; Kitchen: $776.24 awarded to landlord; Lounge / Dining Room: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Stairs / Landing: Blind: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4956354?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4956354?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11040061-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4956354 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4956354?

Bedroom Two: Curtains: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Remove And Dispose Alterations: $1,811.25 awarded to landlord; Kitchen: $776.24 awarded to landlord; Lounge / Dining Room: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Stairs / Landing: Blind: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4956354?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4956354?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11040061-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4956354 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4956354 — net $1,554.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen	$776.24	Repairs: Kitchen
Repairs: Lounge / dining room	$520.00	Repairs: Lounge / dining room
Stairs / landing: blind	$50.00	Stairs / landing: blind
Bedroom two: curtains	$50.00	Bedroom two: curtains
Remove and dispose alterations	$1,811.25	Remove and dispose alterations
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,554.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,554.49

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4956354 — net $1,554.49 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen	$776.24	Repairs: Kitchen
Repairs: Lounge / dining room	$520.00	Repairs: Lounge / dining room
Stairs / landing: blind	$50.00	Stairs / landing: blind
Bedroom two: curtains	$50.00	Bedroom two: curtains
Remove and dispose alterations	$1,811.25	Remove and dispose alterations
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,554.49
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,554.49

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Eves Realty Limited As Agent For James Wyllie $1,
49 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Eves Realty Limited As Agent For James Wyllie immediately.

Reasons

On 14 May 2024, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy for rent arrears, effective 24 May 2024. After the end of the tenancy the landlord filed a claim for compensation, further rent arrears, and refund of the bond.
Mr Norman has appeared for the landlord. There has been no appearance by the tenant.
During the hearing Mr Norman advised that the application for rent arrears had been made in error and was withdrawn.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. In this case the landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act’). Damage to walls, doors, floors, ceilings, windows, and carpets, electrical repairs missing curtains, and rubbish removal.
Mr Norman states the landlord purchased the property in 2016, and that the tenancy commenced on 15 July 2016. The landlord engaged an agent. There was a change of agent. Then on or around July 2023, there was another change of agent and Mr Norman became the property manager.
The property is a former state house built in the 1940s. There are other similar properties nearby. The property has two stories, upstairs there are three bedrooms and the main bathroom. Downstairs is an entrance / hallway, laundry, kitchen, dining / lounge area, and toilet. Separate from the house there is a double garage.
At the beginning of the tenancy the property was around 70 years old. The evidence shows that apart from some more modern fixtures in the bathroom and kitchen, the property retains most of its original features. There is no evidence that the property has undergone any significant refurbishment.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord made a comprehensive insurance claim, resulting in, what appears to have been, a significant refurbishment of the property.
The landlord’s primary claim is for damage attributable to the tenant. There is also a claim for rubbish removal and missing chattels.
To succeed with a claim for damage 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 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
The landlord has insurance for careless damage with an excess of $1,000.00 for each individual claim.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The primary issue in this case is determining whether the damage claimed occurred during the tenancy. In cases involving older properties that are subject to wear and tear, the Tribunal must be able to make a proper before and after comparison.
There is no pre tenancy report or photographs showing the property’s condition at the commencement of the tenancy.
Mr Norman has produced some photographs of the interior and exterior, he states were given to the landlord by the real estate agents marketing the property for sale in 2016. These photographs show the property fully furnished and staged for sale; taken at a distance they are clearly for marketing purposes. For establishing a base line for any subsequent damage claims, these photographs are of limited evidential value.
The landlord has produced photographs taken by the previous property manager at an inspection on 28 February 2023, their last inspection before ending their tenure. These photographs are not accompanied by a report. They show the property fully furnished, with walls and floors obscured. Visible areas of the interior show pre-existing partially repaired damage throughout the property.
On 08 August 2023 and again on 24 November 2023, Mr Norman conducted tenancy inspections that included photographs. While these are more comprehensive than those supplied by the previous agent, they also show most of the interior walls and floors obscured and record the pre-existing damage.
The end of tenancy photographs show damage to walls, doors, windows, ceilings, wooden floors, and carpet.
Presenting the claims, Mr Norman has guided the Tribunal through the end of tenancy photographs, room by room, identifying the damage claimed. Mr Norman has then provided the individual cost of repairing the damage or replacing the missing chattel.
In each case, I have considered the evidence and Mr Norman’s submissions and made an objective assessment, identifying the damage attributable to the tenant. If satisfied to the required standard that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, I have then gone onto consider the cost of repairing or replacement, and finally any depreciation or betterment issue.
The absence of a pre tenancy checklist or reliable evidence confirming the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, presents a challenge for the landlord establishing more likely than not the damage claimed occurred during the tenancy, and that it exceeded fair wear and tear. Kitchen
The landlord is claiming for damage to the bottom of the French doors leading from the kitchen to the deck. There are five small holes in one wall next to the door into the dining room, along with a relocated power socket, a damaged power socket, peeling wallpaper, a damaged cat door, and blinds.
After considering the evidence, the only damage that I can be satisfied occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear is a series of five small holes likely made to re position a power socket, and damage to another power socket which has been pulled from the wall.
The landlord is claiming $611.63 to repair the holes and repaint the walls in the kitchen, and $276.24 for electrical work. I award the full amount claimed for the electrical work. However, the repair costs include damage not attributable to the tenant. I therefore reduce the repair claim to account for betterment and award the landlord $500.00. The total amount awarded for the kitchen is $776.24. Dining / lounge
In this room the landlord claims for eight discrete areas of damage to the walls, two holes in the ceiling, a missing heat pump front, significant carpet staining, and missing curtains.
The photographs from 28 February 2023, 11 August 2023, and 24 November 2023 show walls obscured by pictures and wall hangings. The damage that is visible has been partially repaired. The holes in the ceiling are shown in the landlord’s photographs from 11 August 2023 with cables running through them. The front of the heat pump unit appears intact. The visible areas of carpet show wear and tear consistent with its age. Not all of the windows are visible, although at least one set of curtains can be identified.
After considering the evidence, I am satisfied that the heat pump front was damaged, and one set of curtains was removed from the lounge area.
The landlord claims $470.00 to replace the heat pump front. I am satisfied the tenant is liable for the missing heat pump front, and the amount claimed is awarded.
The curtains in the lounge were replaced with blinds each costing $288.00. The curtains shown in the photographs are old and show signs of wear and tear. Curtains in rental properties typically have an estimated useful lifespan of around 8 years. Although these curtains were well past their estimated useful lifespan, they still had some value providing privacy. Considering betterment and depreciation, I award the landlord $50.00 towards the replacement of the missing curtain. Entrance / Hallway / Laundry
The landlord is claiming for ceiling damage in the laundry, a wooden blind with a broken slat, peeling varnish on the floor, partially repaired damage on the hallway wall, a cracked window, and a missing door to a storage cupboard.
In this area, the Tribunal is unable to make a proper comparison. The blinds and window are not shown in the previous reports. The hallway wall appears in the previous inspection with partially repaired damage. The peeling varnish is fair wear and tear. The door is missing in all previous reports and is covered by a curtain. The claim for this area is declined. Stairs / Landing
The landlord is claiming for a missing blind over the window on the stairs, a cracked window at the top of the stairs, wall damage including paint scuffs and marks, carpet stains, a missing light bulb, and a relocated banister / handrail.
The inspection report from 11 August 2023 shows partially repaired wall damage. The report from 28 February 2023, show some of the brackets holding the banister to the wall have become detached. The report from 11 August 2023, shows that the banister has been relocated to the other side of the stairs. There are no clear photographs of the stained area of carpet on which to make a comparison. The crack in the window appears consistent with fair wear and tear.
The only area of damage that I can be satisfied of is the missing blind in the stairs, which can be seen in the report from 28 February 2023. The landlord is claiming $319.00 to replace the blind. There is no evidence of the blinds age. As stated, blinds in rental properties have an estimated useful lifespan of around 8 years. Considering depreciation and betterment I award the landlord $50.00 toward the replacement blind. Bedroom one
The landlord is claiming for holes in the bedroom door , a missing wardrobe handle ( located on a window sill nearby) , damage to the wall paper , four small partially repaired patches on the wall, a patch on the ceiling , cracks to two windows , a large red stain on the carpet , a scratch on the window sill , sanding damage to another window sill, missing patches of wall paper , and missing curtains.
The inspection report from 28 February 2023 shows pre-existing damage to walls, a missing curtain, and damage to the carpet. It is not possible to conduct a proper before and after comparison, as the floors, walls, and windows in this room, like the other bedrooms, is obscured by furniture and décor. I cannot determine with any degree of accuracy the damage occurring during the tenancy. The claim for this area is declined. Bedroom two
This is the master bedroom. The landlord is claiming for three missing curtains, a partially repaired patch of wall under the window, wallpaper tears, a missing patch of carpet between the bedroom and the hallway, marks on the door, damage to the door frame, staining to the carpet, and a cracked window.
The floors, walls, and windows in this room obscured by furniture, floor coverings, pictures, and wall hangings. There are also pictures affixed to the windows. The curtains shown in the tenancy report from 11 August 2023, although one appears mismatched. The patch of carpet is shown as missing in the report from 28 February 2023.
The only area of damage that I can be satisfied of is a missing curtain. The landlord is claiming $279.20 to replace the curtain with a blind. There is no evidence regarding the age of the curtain at the end of the tenancy. As stated, curtains and blinds in rental properties have an estimated useful lifespan of around 8 years. The curtain shown in the report shows signs of wear and tear. Considering depreciation and betterment, I award the landlord $50.00 toward the replacement blind. Bedroom three
The landlord is claiming for a missing curtain, wallpaper tears, paint patches on the ceiling, a power socket that has been screwed to the wall, and carpet stains.
The inspection report from 28 February 2023 shows pre-existing damage to wallpaper. Again, most of the carpet is obscured by furniture. The walls are obscured, although some pre-existing damage is visible. The ceiling has paint patches. There is a curtain present, although it is unclear whether it is one of a set or a single curtain covering both windows.
The report from 11 August 2023 also shows wallpaper damage, which is consistent with wear and tear, and other partially repaired damage. There is a curtain. However, again it is difficult to determine whether it is one of a set and the other is missing, or it is a single curtain that covers both windows. The power socket appears to have been screwed to the wall.
I cannot determine with any degree of accuracy the damage occurring during the tenancy. The claim for this area is declined. Garage
The landlord states that the tenant operated a business from the double garage at the rear of the property. The landlord has produced photographs of the interior of the garage, showing what they claim is additional florescent lighting installed by the tenant.
There are no photographs showing the interior of the garage at the commencement of the tenancy. There is one photograph from 28 February 2023, which is labelled as the “carport”. The photograph has no evidential value showing the lighting configuration. The inspection photographs from 11 August 2023 show a mixture of old and newer wiring. From the photographs it is not possible to determine the age of either. In the case I cannot be satisfied as to the nature or condition of the lighting in the garage at the commencement of the tenancy. The claim is declined. Exterior / Rubbish removal
These claims are that the tenant has made alterations which they have then failed to remove, namely a lean-to shed, spa pool, wooden fence at the front of the house, and a pergola over the deck at the rear of the property. The landlord also claims that the tenant failed to reinstate the lawn, which they state was used to park cars and as a turning circle. The landlord is also claiming for damage to a sensor light, and that the tenant has failed to remove rubbish.
In assessing whether any alterations have been made to the exterior of the property the marketing photographs from 2016 have more evidential value.
The landlord is claiming $5,744.25 to remove the rubbish, remove and dispose of a lean-to shed, pergola, fence, and spa pool. The landlord also claims $86.25 to disconnect the spa pool.
There is insufficient evidence concerning the lean-to shed, and the sensor light.
Unless otherwise agreed, tenants must remove any alterations made and reinstate the property. In this case, I am satisfied that the tenant has added the spa pool, fence, and pergola. I am satisfied that the tenant has parked or allowed vehicles to be parked on the lawn. I am also satisfied that the rubbish left belongs to the tenant, not the landlord. The invoice is not itemised, the amount claimed is not reasonable. I award the landlord $1,725.00 to remove and dispose of the alterations and reinstate the lawn, as well as $86.25 to disconnect the pool. Other
In this case, the landlord has largely been unsuccessful with their claims for damage. Of the $23,234.49 claimed, the landlord has been awarded $ 3,234.49.
As stated, the absence of reliable evidence confirming the condition of the property at the commencement of the tenancy, posed significant challenges for the landlord establishing, more likely than not, that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it exceeded fair wear and tear.
Repairs have clearly been attempted during the tenancy, but it is uncertain by whom and for what reason. There is no evidence of any breach notices or proceedings being brought by the landlord for damage over the course of the tenancy. A state of affairs has clearly been allowed to occur or persist unabated over the course of the tenancy under the stewardship of the previous agent, although the specifics remain unclear. Costs
The landlord has been partly successful, and I reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression.
The landlord does not seek suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
Although the tenant has not appeared, they have been substantially successful in these proceedings. On that basis, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise the discretion under section 95A(4) to suppress the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4956354 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4956354 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions