What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4999988 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 4999988?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $5.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $79.88 awarded to landlord; Barge Board: $482.50 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $448.50 awarded to landlord; Oven Door: $149.01 awarded to landlord; Painting Rooms: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $116.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4999988?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4999988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11320130-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4999988 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 4999988?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $5.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $79.88 awarded to landlord; Barge Board: $482.50 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Doors: $448.50 awarded to landlord; Oven Door: $149.01 awarded to landlord; Painting Rooms: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $116.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4999988?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4999988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11320130-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9 Bartlett Drive, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4999988 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4999988 — net $1,183.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$116.51	Water rates
Repairs: Painting rooms	$2,000.00	Repairs: Painting rooms
Repairs: Doors	$448.50	Repairs: Doors
Repairs: Barge board	$482.50	Repairs: Barge board
Shower replacement	$79.88	Shower replacement
Repairs: Oven door	$149.01	Repairs: Oven door
Light bulbs/batteries	$5.25	Light bulbs/batteries
Repairs: Carpet	$230.00	Repairs: Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,183.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,183.65

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Jason Barrows and Lauren Michelle Barrows must pay [The landlord/s] $1,183.65 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,355.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a seven-year tenancy beginning on 19 May 2017 and ending on 22 August 2024. Tenant application
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond ($2,355.00) currently with the Bond Centre and reimbursement of the filing fee. Landlord application
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much is owed for water rates?

While the tenants left the tenancy on 22 August 2024, I am told that the tenant had arranged for carpet cleaners to attend to clean the carpet on 24 August 2024. That is the date of the invoice for carpet cleaning submitted by the tenant. The landlord took a reading of the water meter after the carpet cleaning and sent an email setting out the calculation for the water rates sought.
I accept that the tenant should pay for the water used to clean the carpet if that is a service that they have employed.
I note in the tenant’s documents that the water reading was after the landlord carried out water blasting. At the hearing there was no evidence of when the water blasting took place. Without this information I can only rely on the carpet cleaning as impacting on the water.
I note however, as mentioned below, that I do not accept that the tenants need to carry out water blasting as I see that as a maintenance issue.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant produced photographs showing that the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord had to replace some light bulbs. One was an LED down light and the others were bulbs that had blown or were the wrong colour.
I am not awarding for replacement of the LED down light as that is not a standard light bulb. I am also not awarding for replacement due to the light bulbs being the wrong colour (warm rather than cool or vice versa).
I have awarded for the replacement of 3 light bulbs. The pack of light bulbs purchased by the landlord costs $14.00 for a pack of 8. An individual light bulb is $1.75 each so I am awarding the cost of 3 being $5.25.

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: wall holes, marked and patched doors, carpet burn, nails and hooks in cladding and barge board, internal damage from hooks, damaged doors, oven door removed, damaged shower fitting. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
While some of the damage was more than fair wear and tear, I also note that this was a seven-year tenancy. Over that period there is bound to be some wear and tear. I note that soon after the tenancy ended (in an email dated 26 August 2024) the landlord sought costs for painting amounting to $2,501.25 based on a quote he had received.
At the hearing the landlord sought a total of $6,325.00 for repainting three bedrooms, the office, living room and hallway. The work included window frames, door frames, doors, walls ceilings and bathroom ceiling. This work was significantly more than was required to address the damage caused by the tenant.
I have awarded the landlord $2,000.00 for painting of the bedrooms, living room, office and hallway as necessary due to the damage. This is also more in line with the initial quote obtained by the landlord.
I have awarded separate amounts for repairing the doors and barge board which I accept the tenant should be liable for.
The landlord sought the cost of replacing two shower units. On one the hose was damaged and on the other the caps were missing. I am not satisfied that the tenant is wholly responsible for the damage to the shower units. The unit where the caps were missing is the responsibility of the tenant but the unit where the hose is damaged is not. I do not accept that the tenant is responsible for damage from just using the shower.
I have awarded the cost of replacing one of the shower units.
The landlord sought the cost of replacing the bathroom vanity which had been damaged by water. There is no evidence that this damage was caused by more than normal usage of the bathroom where water is a feature.
The landlord claimed for kitchen cupboard doors where the tenant had installed a child safety lock. The landlord said that these were drilled into the door but there was no evidence of that. The tenant said that these were glued on to the front of the doors. The landlord has not removed these and therefore they have not caused any damage. Any damage that these may cause is speculation. I have not awarded for this.
The landlord claimed for repair of the garage ceiling because he says that the tenant stored items above the gib ceiling between the joists. The tenant said that the previous tenant had also used this area for storage. There were no photographs produced to show that there was any damage. This claim was not accepted.
The landlord claimed for replacement of the mailbox. I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for any damage to the mailbox. That claim is not accepted.
The landlord claimed for damage to the lawn. A photograph was produced but I am not satisfied that the tenant has caused any damage to the lawn. That claim is not accepted.
The landlord claimed that the tenant should have water blasted the concrete at the front and rear of the premises. I do not accept that this is a cost for the tenant and instead it is a maintenance issue that the landlord should be responsible for. That claim is not accepted.
The landlord claimed for the cost of replacing a power socket. I note that the tenant had purchased the replacement socket. This is a maintenance issue and I note that the landlord has not replaced the socket even though the premises are re-tenanted.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the landlord’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4999988 — net $1,183.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$116.51	Water rates
Repairs: Painting rooms	$2,000.00	Repairs: Painting rooms
Repairs: Doors	$448.50	Repairs: Doors
Repairs: Barge board	$482.50	Repairs: Barge board
Shower replacement	$79.88	Shower replacement
Repairs: Oven door	$149.01	Repairs: Oven door
Light bulbs/batteries	$5.25	Light bulbs/batteries
Repairs: Carpet	$230.00	Repairs: Carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,183.65
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,183.65

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Jason Barrows and Lauren Michelle Barrows must pay [The landlord/s] $1,183.65 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,355.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a seven-year tenancy beginning on 19 May 2017 and ending on 22 August 2024. Tenant application
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond ($2,355.00) currently with the Bond Centre and reimbursement of the filing fee. Landlord application
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

How much is owed for water rates?

While the tenants left the tenancy on 22 August 2024, I am told that the tenant had arranged for carpet cleaners to attend to clean the carpet on 24 August 2024. That is the date of the invoice for carpet cleaning submitted by the tenant. The landlord took a reading of the water meter after the carpet cleaning and sent an email setting out the calculation for the water rates sought.
I accept that the tenant should pay for the water used to clean the carpet if that is a service that they have employed.
I note in the tenant’s documents that the water reading was after the landlord carried out water blasting. At the hearing there was no evidence of when the water blasting took place. Without this information I can only rely on the carpet cleaning as impacting on the water.
I note however, as mentioned below, that I do not accept that the tenants need to carry out water blasting as I see that as a maintenance issue.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant produced photographs showing that the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord had to replace some light bulbs. One was an LED down light and the others were bulbs that had blown or were the wrong colour.
I am not awarding for replacement of the LED down light as that is not a standard light bulb. I am also not awarding for replacement due to the light bulbs being the wrong colour (warm rather than cool or vice versa).
I have awarded for the replacement of 3 light bulbs. The pack of light bulbs purchased by the landlord costs $14.00 for a pack of 8. An individual light bulb is $1.75 each so I am awarding the cost of 3 being $5.25.

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: wall holes, marked and patched doors, carpet burn, nails and hooks in cladding and barge board, internal damage from hooks, damaged doors, oven door removed, damaged shower fitting. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
While some of the damage was more than fair wear and tear, I also note that this was a seven-year tenancy. Over that period there is bound to be some wear and tear. I note that soon after the tenancy ended (in an email dated 26 August 2024) the landlord sought costs for painting amounting to $2,501.25 based on a quote he had received.
At the hearing the landlord sought a total of $6,325.00 for repainting three bedrooms, the office, living room and hallway. The work included window frames, door frames, doors, walls ceilings and bathroom ceiling. This work was significantly more than was required to address the damage caused by the tenant.
I have awarded the landlord $2,000.00 for painting of the bedrooms, living room, office and hallway as necessary due to the damage. This is also more in line with the initial quote obtained by the landlord.
I have awarded separate amounts for repairing the doors and barge board which I accept the tenant should be liable for.
The landlord sought the cost of replacing two shower units. On one the hose was damaged and on the other the caps were missing. I am not satisfied that the tenant is wholly responsible for the damage to the shower units. The unit where the caps were missing is the responsibility of the tenant but the unit where the hose is damaged is not. I do not accept that the tenant is responsible for damage from just using the shower.
I have awarded the cost of replacing one of the shower units.
The landlord sought the cost of replacing the bathroom vanity which had been damaged by water. There is no evidence that this damage was caused by more than normal usage of the bathroom where water is a feature.
The landlord claimed for kitchen cupboard doors where the tenant had installed a child safety lock. The landlord said that these were drilled into the door but there was no evidence of that. The tenant said that these were glued on to the front of the doors. The landlord has not removed these and therefore they have not caused any damage. Any damage that these may cause is speculation. I have not awarded for this.
The landlord claimed for repair of the garage ceiling because he says that the tenant stored items above the gib ceiling between the joists. The tenant said that the previous tenant had also used this area for storage. There were no photographs produced to show that there was any damage. This claim was not accepted.
The landlord claimed for replacement of the mailbox. I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for any damage to the mailbox. That claim is not accepted.
The landlord claimed for damage to the lawn. A photograph was produced but I am not satisfied that the tenant has caused any damage to the lawn. That claim is not accepted.
The landlord claimed that the tenant should have water blasted the concrete at the front and rear of the premises. I do not accept that this is a cost for the tenant and instead it is a maintenance issue that the landlord should be responsible for. That claim is not accepted.
The landlord claimed for the cost of replacing a power socket. I note that the tenant had purchased the replacement socket. This is a maintenance issue and I note that the landlord has not replaced the socket even though the premises are re-tenanted.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4999988 — Property damage at 9 Bartlett Drive, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4999988 — Property damage at 9 Bartlett Drive, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

How much is owed for water rates?

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