What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5003648?

The tribunal order states: Johannes Kuhler and Melani Kuhler to pay Behome Realty Limited as agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5003648?

Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5003648?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5003648?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11093353-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5003648?

The tribunal order states: Johannes Kuhler and Melani Kuhler to pay Behome Realty Limited as agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5003648?

Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5003648?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5003648?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11093353-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Sabre Street, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5003648 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5003648 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for damage to vinyl	$500.00	Compensation for damage to vinyl
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5003648 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for damage to vinyl	$500.00	Compensation for damage to vinyl
Net award	$500.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Order

Johannes Kuhler and Melani Kuhler to pay Behome Realty Limited as agent for Karen & Neil Quinn & Burne $500.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. Johannes Kuhler attended the hearing on behalf of the tenant. Melani Kuhler did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant filed a cross-application for a refund of the bond.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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 landlord sought compensation for the following matters: a. Carpet cleaning; and b. Oven/rangehood cleaning.
I deal with each matter in turn below. Carpet cleaning
The landlord submits that the carpet inside the house needed to be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy due to the length and number of people living at the address. The tenancy was 3 years long and five people lived at the address. The landlord also submits that there were numerous large oil stains on the carpet in the garage that needed to be cleaned. Further, when the landlord mopped the vinyl in the property, they state that the mophead was very dirty. The landlord says that this contributed to their decision to have the carpets professionally cleaned.
The landlord provided an invoice for $287.50 for carpet cleaning. This invoice only references carpet being cleaned in the living room, hallway and four bedrooms. Notwithstanding this, the landlord states that the carpet in the garage was cleaned as well.
The landlord did not provide any photographs of the carpet inside the house or garage at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord accepts that the carpet inside the house was not stained or soiled during the tenancy.
The tenant gave evidence that they kept at least one motorbike inside the garage, which they worked on. The tenant states that they placed tarpaulin and an oil absorbent mat down to prevent any leaks. The tenant states that they were not aware of any oil leaks on the carpet in the garage.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for carpet cleaning is dismissed. In the absence of photographs, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that there were large oil stains on the carpet in the garage that required professional cleaning. Further, the landlord has not proven that the carpet inside the house required professional cleaning either. The landlord accepts that the carpet inside the house was not stained or soiled during the tenancy. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant complied with their obligations under section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA. Oven/rangehood cleaning
The landlord states that the tenant did not clean the oven/rangehood at the end of the tenancy and that they had to do this themselves. The landlord seeks compensation of $100.00 for their time.
The landlord did not provide photographs of the oven/rangehood at the end of the tenancy. Therefore, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that it required cleaning.
Even if I was convinced that the oven/rangehood required cleaning at the end of the tenancy, this does not mean that I would necessarily grant the landlord’s claim for compensation to clean the oven. A tenant is not required to leave the premises in a pristine condition. Their obligation under section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA is to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Whether a tenant has done this requires an assessment of the general state of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant gave evidence that they thoroughly cleaned the property at the end of the tenancy. The landlord accepts that overall, the property was left in a very reasonably clean and tidy condition. Therefore, even if the oven/rangehood required cleaning at the end of the tenancy, it is unlikely that this one matter would result in a finding that the tenant left the property in an unreasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for $100.00 to clean the oven/rangehood is dismissed.

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.
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403
When considering a claim for compensation for damage, the Tribunal has a discretion to award either the full cost of replacement or diminution in value. In determining what option to award, the overarching principle is one of reasonableness. 1
The landlord alleged the tenant was responsible for the following damage: a. Discolouration and scratch marks to the vinyl b. Holes in the wall c. Damaged lawn d. Discolouration and marks on the concrete patio
I deal with each matter in turn below. Discolouration and scratch marks to the vinyl
The landlord submits that the tenant damaged the vinyl in the dining/family area by causing scratch marks and yellow staining. The landlord provided photographs of the flooring which show some faint yellow staining and scratch marks. The landlord highlighted one scratch mark in particular which was more prominent than the others. The landlord states that this was caused by the tenant at the beginning of the tenancy when they were moving furniture into the property. This scratch mark is located near the entrance of the property.
The landlord provided confirmation of their insurance claim being accepted and $1,000.00 excess. The landlord sought compensation of $1,000.00 to cover the excess. The landlord advised that although most of the staining and scratch marks were located in the dining/family area, the entire vinyl flooring in the property needed to be replaced. This particular type of vinyl was no longer in production. Therefore, a patch repair was not possible as it would not look aesthetically pleasing.
The tenant accepts that the yellow staining on the vinyl in the dining/family area occurred during the tenancy. The tenant is unsure what caused the staining. They suggested it might have been from a kitchen stool or food preparation. The tenant submits that there were some minor scratch marks on the floor before the tenancy began. They accept that some scratch marks must have occurred during this tenancy but submit that this is fair wear and tear. The tenant cannot specifically recall causing a scratch mark at the beginning of the tenancy when moving furniture, but accepts that this might have occurred. 1 Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] 1 AC 344.
On the balance of probabilities, I am convinced that the vinyl in the dining/family area was carelessly damaged by the tenant in a way that resulted in some faint yellow staining. I am also convinced that the vinyl in the entranceway was carelessly damaged caused by the tenant when moving furniture into the property. I find the faint staining and scratch mark to the vinyl in the entranceway to be more than fair wear and tear.
In respect of the other scratch marks referred to by the landlord in the dining/family area, I find these to be the result of fair wear and tear. The property is 6 years and old and this tenancy lasted just over three years. There were 4 - 5 people living at the property during the tenancy. A dining/family area tends to have items such as chairs and tables on it that are used multiple times per day for eating and drinking. It is expected that over the course of three years in a household of 4 – 5 people, chairs will be moved frequently when people wish to eat or drink. It is also expected that there will be a lot of foot traffic in the area. These things will cause some deterioration and scratching to the floor.
Having found that the tenant carelessly damaged the vinyl by causing some faint yellow stains and a prominent scratch mark in the entranceway, the next issue I need to determine is the amount of compensation they should pay the landlord.
The tenant is to pay the landlord $500.00 in compensation to replace the vinyl in the property. I consider this amount to be fair and reasonable considering the age of the flooring at the end of the tenancy (6 years old) and the fact that the property was approximately 3 years old at the beginning of this tenancy. The tenant is only responsible for damage sustained in the dining/family area and entranceway, not the whole house. 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. The capital value of the house is enhanced by having new vinyl laid throughout. Holes in the wall
The landlord submitted that the tenant caused “hundreds if not thousands of marks on the walls.” The landlord submitted photographs of the property which showed some scuff marks on the walls. Some of the photographs also showed walls with scratches and door/window frames with chips of paint removed. The landlord also submitted that the tenant attempted to patch repair parts of the wall, but had used the wrong coloured paint.
The tenant accepts that the scuff marks, minor scratches to the wall and chips of paint most likely occurred during the tenancy, but submits that this is fair wear and tear.
The landlord has not had the walls repaired. No invoice or quote was provided to the Tribunal.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the damage sustained to the walls, as well as the missing chips of paint around the door/window frames to be fair wear and tear. The walls are white. This tenancy lasted 3 years and there were approximately 4 – 5 people living at the address. Some deterioration to the state of the walls is to be expected. I consider the damage referred to by the landlord to consistent with reasonable use of the premises and fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the walls is dismissed. Damaged lawn
The landlord submits that the tenant parked their boat on the lawn in contravention of the tenancy agreement. The landlord states that this caused damage and sought compensation accordingly.
The landlord provided photographs taken at the beginning of the tenancy. The lawn is neatly mowed but appears patchy. The landlord did not provide photographs of the lawn at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has not had the lawn resown yet. They did not provide an invoice or quote to the Tribunal.
In the absence of photographs of the lawn at the end of the tenancy, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the lawn was damaged by the tenant. The photographs of the lawn taken at the beginning of the tenancy also suggest that it might not have been in the greatest state of health at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation in respect of the lawn is dismissed. Discolouration and marks on the concrete patio
The landlord claims that the tenant stained the concrete on the outdoor patio. The landlord suspects that the tenant kept a barbecue or brasserie which spilt oil on the concrete.
The landlord sought compensation of $169.00 to cover their purchase of Wet & Forget. A receipt was submitted to the Tribunal. The landlord sought further compensation for future professional cleaning of the concrete patio. This work has not been undertaken yet. The landlord did not submit an invoice or quote to the Tribunal.
The landlord submitted a photograph of the concrete patio area taken at the end of the tenancy which shows some discolouration and markings.
The landlord provided photographs of the property taken at the beginning of the tenancy. Unfortunately, it was raining at the time and the outdoor concrete patio is wet in the photographs. Therefore, one is not able to see the overall colour and whether any marks are present.
The tenant denies ever spilling oil on the concrete patio outside. The tenant states that the discolouration is due to moss accruing when the concrete is wet. The tenant said that they applied Wet & Forget to the concrete as part of the cleaning completed at the end of the tenancy.
On the balance of probabilities, I consider the discolouration and staining to the outdoor concrete patio as shown in the photographs to be fair wear and tear. The concrete patio is outside the property and uncovered. It is exposed to the elements all year round. The property is 6 years old and this tenancy lasted just over 3 years. If the tenant used a barbecue on the patio in summer, I would consider this to be reasonable use of the patio. It is expected that an outdoor concrete patio might suffer some discolouration and minor staining over time and from use, particularly in summer. I do not consider the photograph submitted by the landlord proves significant damage that is inconsistent with reasonable use and fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s claim for compensation in respect of the concrete patio is dismissed. Filing fee
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in relation to their claims and therefore, I do not order that either party reimburse the other the filing fee. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression in their written applications.
Neither party has been wholly or substantially successful in their claim and therefore, I am not required to grant them name suppression under section 95A(1) RTA.
I have a residual discretion to grant the parties name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
Neither party advanced their application for name suppression at the hearing and I was not referred to any special circumstances why name suppression should be granted. No special circumstances are apparent from the facts of this case.
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. I do not consider that this is an appropriate case to grant name suppression to either party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5003648 — Property damage at 24 Sabre Street, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5003648 — Property damage at 24 Sabre Street, Papamoa Beach, Papamoa 3118

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions