How much money was awarded in case 4984428?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Landlord Expenses – Early Terminatio…: $793.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; to Walls, doors, door frames, window…: $920.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4984428?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4984428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11171424-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4984428?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Landlord Expenses – Early Terminatio…: $793.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $115.00 awarded to landlord; to Walls, doors, door frames, window…: $920.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4984428?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4984428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11171424-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4984428 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4984428 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4984428 — net $2,055.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Repair: to Benchtop	$115.00	Repair: to Benchtop
Repairs: to Walls, doors, door frames, window frames	$920.00	Repairs: to Walls, doors, door frames, window frames
Landlord expenses – early termination of fixed term	$793.50	Landlord expenses – early termination of fixed term
Net award	$2,055.50
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,055.50

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Gagandeep Singh and Ramandeep Kaur to pay [The landlord/s] $2,055.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,055.50 Gagandeep Singh and Ramandeep Kaur: $744.50

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.

Mr Singh attended the hearing on behalf of both tenants.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants claimed a refund of the bond and made a claim in respect of compliance with the healthy homes standards. Relevant legal provisions

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

Section 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined this application with these provisions in mind.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence. Landlord expenses

The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy with a contractual end date of 28 March 2025.

The landlord agreed to an early termination of the tenancy.

The tenancy ended on 23 August 2024.

Where are landlord consents to the early termination of a fixed term tenancy the landlord is entitled to recover the reasonable costs incurred as a result of the early termination.

A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenants. See Section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Expenses

The landlord has provided a breakdown of expenses totalling $1,473.74.

However, on 27 August 2024 the landlord advised that the “handover fee” will be $690.00 plus GST (total being $793.50) and I consider this to be reasonable and make an order for this amount. Shortfall in rent

In addition, the landlord claimed the shortfall in rent between $700.00 that was paid by the tenants and $690.00 which is the rent being paid by the new tenants.

The landlord claimed $520.00 being a top up amount for one year.

The tenants agree to paying the additional $10.00 to top up the difference.

The tenant raised that the fixed term only had a further 31 weeks to the end date so they should only have to pay $310.00 for the difference in weekly rent.

I need to consider the provisions of the RTA which provide the landlord is entitled to recover expenses reasonably incurred.

I do not consider the claim for the difference in rent an expense the landlord has incurred.

I consider there is no jurisdiction to treat the claim for the shortfall in rent as compensation as the RTA provides the Tribunal can order damages or compensation in respect of a breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act, neither of which applies in this case. See section 77 (n) of the RTA.

Accordingly, I dismiss the claim for the shortfall in rent.

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.

The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).

The property was new at the commencement of the tenancy. I have reviewed the photographs provided and consider the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy however I consider the tenant’s were very close to doing so in the cleaning they did undertake. I consider the tenants should have completed a final wipe down of surfaces to remove grime and marks.

The landlord claimed $398.40 for cleaning costs and provided an invoice in support of the claim.

I consider the tenants should pay $200.00 of this to reflect the further cleaning they should have undertaken.

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 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 landlord’s insurance excess of $1,250.00 and four weeks rent is $2,800.00.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The kitchen bench had a chip in it that required repair. i. The landlord claimed $115.00 for the repair. ii. Mr Singh said the damage was likely caused by his wife while she was working in the kitchen. I consider this likely to be careless damage and award the full amount for the repair. b. The walls, doors, door frames and window frames were damaged. i. The landlord said the main damage was caused by the tenant’s wall mounting their television and installing locks in some rooms. ii. The landlord provided an inspection report and photographs as evidence of the damage. I can see that there were some areas where there were small holes or dents in the walls, doors, door frames and window frames. I cannot identify the locks in the photographs, but the tenant acknowledged installing locks without the landlord’s consent. iii. The tenant’s accepted causing minor damage but raised that the landlord has not actually fixed the damage yet and has therefore not incurred any costs in relation to the damage. iv. The landlord claimed $920.00 to repair the damage based on a quote that was provided in evidence. The landlord advised that they would be attending to the repairs. v. I consider some of the damage was intentional (ie installing locks and wall mounting the television without the landlord’s consent) and some careless. I make an order for the full amount claimed for the wall repair work.

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

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord’s claims are for repair work only, not replacement, therefore no deduction is made for betterment and depreciation. Kitchen bench panel and floor

The landlord claimed compensation for water damage to the kitchen bench panel and dining room floor.

The claim for compensation is based on the landlord’s view a. that the tenants carelessly allowed water to seep into the kitchen bench panel and floor, and b. that the tenant failed to notify the landlord of the resulting damage.

A tenant has a responsibility to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. See section 40 (1) (d) of the RTA)

Mr Singh said he did tell the landlord’s inspector about the damage during an inspection in October 2023.

I note that July 2023 inspection report shows the damaged area covered with children’s belongings and the October 2023 inspection report shows the belongings have been removed and the early stages of the water damage is visible.

I consider it likely that Mr Singh did inform the inspector of the damage in October 2023 and the inspector may not have informed the property manager.

This meant the landlord did not attend to the issue which led to further damage to the kitchen bench panel and floor, both of which required repair.

Neither party could explain the specific cause of the water damage, however I consider that the tenants have used the kitchen sink as one would normally use it and I do not consider the tenants have carelessly or intentionally caused this damage.

The claim in respect of the damage to the kitchen bench and floor is dismissed. Tenant’s claims

The tenants filed an application with the Tribunal for a refund of the bond and to dispute the landlord’s claims for compensation.

The tenants raised that the landlord did not provide a heathy home statement at the commencement of the tenancy.

From the documentation provided it appears that the landlord did not provide the full Healthy Homes Statement to the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy however the tenants did not seek any order in relation to this matter and accordingly no order is made. Filing fee

Because Gagandeep Singh, Ramandeep Kaur has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.00. Suppression

Mr Singh confirmed that name suppression was not sought.

The landlord sought suppression and as the application is substantially successful, I have made an order accordingly.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4984428 — net $2,055.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$200.00	Cleaning
Repair: to Benchtop	$115.00	Repair: to Benchtop
Repairs: to Walls, doors, door frames, window frames	$920.00	Repairs: to Walls, doors, door frames, window frames
Landlord expenses – early termination of fixed term	$793.50	Landlord expenses – early termination of fixed term
Net award	$2,055.50
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,055.50