What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5002368?

The tribunal order states: Shaun Seddon, Zhane Seymour, Oliver Stanely Tony Gray and Hayden Lance

How much money was awarded in case 5002368?

Cleaning: $21.92 awarded to landlord; Fence Panels: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rust Stain On Concrete: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $6.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Oven Tray: $47.98 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Trees: $718.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5002368?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5002368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10846430-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5002368?

The tribunal order states: Shaun Seddon, Zhane Seymour, Oliver Stanely Tony Gray and Hayden Lance

How much money was awarded in case 5002368?

Cleaning: $21.92 awarded to landlord; Fence Panels: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Rust Stain On Concrete: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $6.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Oven Tray: $47.98 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Trees: $718.67 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5002368?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5002368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10846430-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18 Ruapehu Road, Poraiti, Napier 4112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5002368 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5002368 — net $1,294.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$21.92	Cleaning
Repairs: Rust stain on concrete	$250.00	Repairs: Rust stain on concrete
Repairs: Fence panels	$250.00	Repairs: Fence panels
Replace furnishings: Trees	$718.67	Replace furnishings: Trees
Replace furnishings: Oven tray	$47.98	Replace furnishings: Oven tray
Repairs: Wall dent Filing fee	$6.00	Repairs: Wall dent Filing fee
Net award	$1,294.57
Bond	$3,040.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,294.57

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5002368 — net $1,294.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$21.92	Cleaning
Repairs: Rust stain on concrete	$250.00	Repairs: Rust stain on concrete
Repairs: Fence panels	$250.00	Repairs: Fence panels
Replace furnishings: Trees	$718.67	Replace furnishings: Trees
Replace furnishings: Oven tray	$47.98	Replace furnishings: Oven tray
Repairs: Wall dent Filing fee	$6.00	Repairs: Wall dent Filing fee
Net award	$1,294.57
Bond	$3,040.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,294.57

Order

Shaun Seddon, Zhane Seymour, Oliver Stanely Tony Gray and Hayden Lance Caswell to pay Annabelle Young, Rodney Albert Young and Adrian Robert Young $1,294.57 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 (6486199001) immediately apportioned as follows: Annabelle Young, Rodney Albert Young and Adrian Robert Young: $1,294.57 Shaun Seddon, Zhane Seymour, Oliver Stanely Tony Gray and Hayden Lance Caswell: $1,745.43

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Adrian Young attended as landlord. Shaun Seddon, Zhane Seymore and Hayden Haswell attended as tenants. Rodney Young, Annabelle Young and Oliver Grey were also called but declined to attend or could not be connected.
The tenancy ended on 19 April 2024. On 5 May 2024 the tenants made an application to the Tribunal for refund of their bond.
On 11 September the landlord filed a cross application with the Tribunal for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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. Oil stains
The premises were brand new at the beginning of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy the tenants left the driveway with approximately 10 oil stains from a car, on the driveway. The landlord bought a product to clean the driveway and provided an invoice for $21.92.
The tenants accepted they had caused the marks.
No attempt had been made by the tenants to remove the oil marks from the driveway. I am satisfied the driveway was not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The amount is proved. Water filters
The landlord installed water filters at the property to ensure the water being supplied to the house was of a high quality. At the end of the tenancy the landlord stated that the water filters needed replacing.
The landlord made an argument that the water filters are similar to lightbulbs which a tenant is responsible for replacing at the end of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement also stated that the tenants were responsible for replacing worn out water filters.
I appreciate the landlord’s argument regarding the similarity between water filters and lightbulbs, which are a benefit to tenants and provide no utility to landlords. However I note that installed water filters may be one of several factors that add to a perception of a property being desirable, and therefore contribute to a higher rent.
I also see a distinction between light bulbs and water filters in that light bulbs are an essential consumable item that to all intents and purposes are part of every tenancy; water filters are not.
Whereas a landlord may add any condition to a tenant agreement, under the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”) a tenant is only bound by a condition that is consistent with the RTA. In cases where landlords have added extra condition such as “no pets” (as was also the case in this tenancy), and the RTA is silent on a tenant’s “right" to have pets, there is no provision in the RTA that supports a claim from a landlord against a tenant having a pet. That is not to say that the agreement is meaningless or cannot be enforced; it is simply to say that this is not an extra condition that is necessarily enforceable in the Tribunal.
Section 45(1) (ca) of the RTA sets out that a landlord has a responsibility to ensure that if a premises does not have a reticulated water supply, the premises must provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water.
Section 39(4) (c) of the RTA states that the tenant is responsible for charges relating to the supply of water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption.
In the circumstances I determine that because there is no positive obligation on the tenant under the RTA to pay for water filters. The factors I find in support of this conclusion include: a. The landlord is not obligated to provide water filters; they have provided them of their own initiative. b. Water filters are not a necessity in an ordinary tenancy or in this tenancy. c. The tenant is not obligated under the RTA to replace them. d. The water filters are more akin to a water “infrastructure” cost, than a water consumption cost.
This claim is not proved. Trees
Both parties agree that at the beginning of the tenancy, in exchange for one week’s rent the tenant would supply and plant trees at the rear of the property. The parties also agree that the tenant never did this. The tenant states this was because he spent more time than anticipated trying to establish the lawn at the front of the house. Throughout the tenancy, the landlord raised the tenant’s obligation to plant trees with the tenant, and the tenant accepted it. The tenant stated that he had trees that he intended to plant, but they were at another property.
The landlord is seeking reimbursement of $718.67 which he spent on trees for the back yard after the tenancy ended. I note this is a lesser amount than the agreed value of $950.00. The claim and the amount are both 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.
I must also take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord stated that their insurance excess is $1,800.00 per insurance claim. Because of this, the landlord has not made an insurance claim. Oven tray and dent in wall
The tenant did not dispute claims of $47.98 for an oven tray and $6.00 for a dent to a wall. Rust stain on path
Both parties agreed that during the tenancy the tenant put some bags of fertiliser on the concrete driveway/path at the front of the premises. After using the fertiliser he used his air blower to blow any spilled fertiliser onto the grass. However, fertiliser dust apparently remained behind and when it next rained, the iron content in the fertilizer oxidized and stained the concrete with a rust colour.
The landlord stated that the stain was approximately 2m x 1.5m in area. The tenant stated that the rust stain faded during the tenancy and was approximately 0.3m x 0.5m in area at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord bought a cleaning product for $15.99 that had no effect on the rust stain and then got a quotation to have the concrete acid-washed as a remedy. The quotation came in at $1,144.25. The landlord is claiming these two amounts in compensation for the rust stain.
The rust stain is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved carelessness. There was no intention on the tenant’s behalf to cause any damage.
It is established law that the primary consideration in a compensation claim for damages is reasonableness. I note that there is no loss of amenity in this damage and there has been no suggestion that there has been a reduction in value of the property. I also note that the landlord has so far only incurred a loss of $15.99 in attempting to remedy the problem.
I consider $1,144.25 is an unreasonable amount to spend on damage that is no more than cosmetic and of little consequence. Nonetheless I accept a large rust stain is unsightly and it is somewhat permanent.
I consider $250.00 is reasonable amount in the circumstances to compensate the landlord for their loss.
The claim and the amount are both proved. Fence repair
The landlord is claiming $322.00 for damage to two fence panels that he says were caused during the tenancy.
The tenant states the first panel’s damage occurred when a garden chair was blown against the panel during the tenancy on a windy day. I am satisfied the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant is responsible for stowing furniture so that it doesn’t blow around on windy days. In not having done this, I am satisfied the tenant has been careless and is liable for the damage.
Damage to the second panel was disputed. The landlord submitted the tenant didn’t point out the damage at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant submitted that he saw the dent but forgot to mention it.
On the balance of probabilities I prefer the landlord’s information on this point. If the dent was there at the beginning of the tenancy, it was incumbent on the tenant to point it out to the landlord and in failing to have done so, I find it is more likely than not that the dent wasn’t actually there.
The landlord is claiming $322.00 for two fence panels. An invoice has been provided in support.
Having made this determination I find that two smallish dents in a low-cost metal fence are unlikely to cause a loss of amenity or a reduction in rent to the landlord, and replacing both panels is probably not warranted on a reasonableness basis. I award $250.00 to the landlord to compensate for the loss.
The claim and amount are both proved. Floor replacement
The landlord installed a vinyl floor covering in the dining room. At the beginning of the tenancy, because the house was newly built, the landlord gave manuals and other written care information for various fittings and fixtures to the tenant to read. The tenant did not read all of them. One of the booklets related to care of the vinyl flooring which stated that a felt protector should be used under any furniture placed on top of the vinyl flooring.
During the tenancy the tenant brought their pool table into the dining room. To protect the flooring they purchased a rubber mat and placed it under the pool table. The rubber mat reacted with the vinyl flooring and caused an unsightly discolouration in the flooring.
The landlord replaced 13 vinyl planks at a cost of $747.50. The landlord produced photographs and the invoice in support of his claim.
I am satisfied the discoloration to the flooring is damage, it occurred during the tenancy, and it is more than fair wear and tear. The next issue that I must consider is whether or not the damage is the result of carelessness on the part of the tenant.
The carelessness relates to the tenant laying a protective rubber mat over the vinyl flooring. In the first instance the tenant was acting to protect the landlord’s asset. What potentially makes this a careless act, is that the landlord gave the tenant literature that may have made it clear that such a mat would actually cause damage to the vinyl flooring, and the tenant chose not to read the literature.
Manufacturers literature on their products is often wordy, dry, and difficult for many people to read from cover to cover. It is not unusual for people to not read the information. Reading this material, particularly several or many documents as were made available to the tenant who was the first person to live in this newly built house, goes well beyond what can be expected from a reasonably prudent or diligent tenant. From an objective perspective, placing furniture on a vinyl floor is not a risky activity. The responsibility for ensuring the tenant knows about risk factors that are more than reasonably predictable, falls to the landlord and goes beyond providing a selection of manuals or manufacturers information. It would have been prudent of the landlord to highlight to the tenants the somewhat extensive limitations of the flooring product that had been installed.
For the above reasons I find that carelessness has not been proved and the claim is dismissed.
The landlord requested name suppression. The relevant provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) to this application are: 95Proceedings usually to be in public (1)Except as provided in subsections (1A) and (2), the proceedings of the Tribunal shall be conducted in public. 95ASuppression orders (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
There is a presumption under section 95 of the RTA that proceedings will be in public. By extension I consider that information concerning the hearings will be available to the public, including the parties’ identities. There are no sensitive issues raised in this application or by the landlord when seeking name suppression. Because I consider it to be in the public interest that parties’ and properties can be identified, I decline to grant name suppression to the landlord.
Both parties made applications to the Tribunal and both were partially successful in their applications. No award is made regarding reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5002368 — Property damage at 18 Ruapehu Road, Poraiti, Napier 4112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5002368 — Property damage at 18 Ruapehu Road, Poraiti, Napier 4112

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