What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5019583 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $613.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5019583?

Chattels Removed: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity Supply Costs: $126.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019583?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11167081-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5019583 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $613.00 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 5019583?

Chattels Removed: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity Supply Costs: $126.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $60.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019583?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019583?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11167081-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

162 Travis Road, New Brighton, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5019583 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5019583 — net $613.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electricity supply costs	$126.00	Electricity supply costs
Rubbish removal	$60.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$1,000.00	Repairs
Carpet damage	$400.00	Carpet damage
Chattels removed	$900.00	Chattels removed
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$613.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$613.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $613.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6148142-010) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant, Ms Shelton, applied for payment of the bond and exemplary damages for failure by the landlord, Mr Narang, to appoint an agent when out of New Zealand for more than 21 days.
Mr Narang cross applied for power supply costs and for compensation, in particular: • Cleaning the premises: $750.00 • Removing rubbish: $60.00 • Repairing walls, door frame and wardrobe doors: $1,000.00 • Replace the carpets in three rooms: insurance excess payable ($550 per claim) • Remedying a broken oven knob: $126.50 • Repairing damage caused by attaching a boxing bag to the garage: $1,000.00 • Chattel/furniture removed by tenant: $900.00
Ms Shelton accepts the claim for power costs. The claim for cleaning
There was no dispute that Ms Shelton agreed with Mr Narang that he could have the premises professionally cleaned by a contractor he had suggested. Mr Narang provided an invoice from the cleaner for $750.00. However, I am satisfied that there was an agreement between the parties that Ms Shelton would only be required to pay $500.00 towards the cost of the cleaning. The agreement is set out in emails between the parties dated 12 and 13 September 2024. The claim for rubbish removal
Ms Shelton did not dispute that the Council rubbish bins required emptying and cleaning at the end of the tenancy but she claims that the rubbish was put there by her daughter (Leila). There was apparently an oral agreement between Ms Shelton, Mr Narang and Leila made before Ms Shelton’s tenancy ended that Leila would take over the tenancy from 2 September. Leila moved some possessions into the premises before the start date (with Mr Narang’s consent) but it appears she changed her mind and no formal tenancy was entered into.
Given the circumstances I am not satisfied that Ms Shelton has provided sufficient evidence to establish that she is not liable for the removal of the rubbish. Moreover, there is evidence (in particular, in Ms Shelton’s email to Mr Narang dated 12 September) that she agreed to pay the $60.00 claimed to have the rubbish removed and the bins cleaned. The claims for damage
To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises a 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, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Carelessness is not defined in the Act but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, was ‘exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances’.
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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
Ms Shelton accepts the damage to the garage door (which she said was caused by her son), the damage to the kitchen wall, and the damage to the door frame (holes caused by nails). She also accepts that she put vinyl on the wardrobe doors (which damaged the doors when it was removed). However, she disputes the amount claimed for repairing the damage. She says that additional work was done by the contractor for which she should not be liable.
Ms Shelton also claims that the kitchen wall was damaged accidentally when she was moving possessions out of the property. However, I am satisfied that the damage was more likely than not caused carelessly. I consider that a reasonable prudent tenant would take care to not cause damage to the walls when shifting furniture or possessions.
Mr Narang accepts that there was other work done by the contractor than the damage he is claiming, and he has therefore reduced the amount on the invoice for the work ($1,400.00) to $1,000.00. In the circumstances, I consider this a reasonable sum to compensate Mr Narang for the repairs that Ms Shelton is liable for. It seems that Ms Shelton also considered it reasonable as she agreed to pay Mr Narang this sum in her 12 September email for the damage.
Ms Shelton accepts that she spilt hair dye on the bedroom carpet, and she is responsible for the stain to the lounge carpet (which was probably caused by water from a pot plant). However, she claims that the damage to the carpets was caused accidentally. I do not agree. I consider a reasonable prudent careful tenant would take care to ensure that hair dye was not spilt on the carpet and pot plants were not placed or watered in a manner that could cause damage.
Mr Narang also claims that the carpet in another bedroom was damaged, and he claims $550.00 for each room (being the insurance excess payable for the damage in each room).
Ms Shelton said that she has no knowledge of any damage to the carpet in the additional bedroom and Mr Narang was unable say with any specificity what the damage was and there was also no evidence, such as a photograph, to support the damage. The claim to replace the carpet in that room is therefore dismissed.
The claim is for the cost to replace the carpets (up to the policy excess payable) although Mr Narang has not yet had the carpets replaced. However, I am not persuaded that the stains have so badly damaged the carpets that they require replacement. In the circumstances I consider a fair sum to compensate Mr Narang for the damage to the carpets is $400.00.
Mr Narang claims the sum of $1,000.00, based on an oral quote he said he received, to repair damage to the garage caused by Ms Shelton (or another person with her permission) attaching a boxing bag to it. Ms Shelton accepts the damage but claims that she also had an oral quote to have it repaired and this quote was $400.00 or $600.00 if the contractor encountered difficulties with the repair. Mr Narang has not yet had the work done and given the uncertainties on the actual cost to repair the damage I consider it reasonable that Ms Shelton pay the amount of the lowest ‘quote’ provided by the parties for the repair.
Mr Narang claims that the oven knob was broken during the tenancy. He employed a contractor to investigate and to replace the knob. However, he said that the contractor told him that a replacement knob was unable to be found given the age of the oven. Mr Narang claims the cost of the contractors call out fee being $126.50. The oven is still operational despite the issue with the knob, but Mr Narang said that he will have to replace the oven sometime in the future. Mr Narang claims the cost of the contractors call out fee being $126.50.
Ms Shelton denies any knowledge of the issue with the knob and suggests that it could have been done by someone, such as the cleaner, after the tenancy ended.
I dismiss the claim for the damage to the knob. It is not clear what the damage is and therefore whether it could simply be due to ordinary wear and tear. Moreover, I am not satisfied that Mr Narang has provided sufficient evidence to establish that the knob was damaged during the tenancy. Furniture removed by Ms Shelton
Ms Shelton accepts that at the end of the tenancy she removed some furniture belonging to Mr Narang. It seems that Ms Shelton now does not want to keep the furniture and wants to return it to Mr Narang but Mr Narang does not now want it returned.
I am satisfied that the parties came to a binding and enforceable agreement in September 2024 whereby Ms Shelton would purchase the furniture from Mr Narang for a sum of $900.00. Mr Narang is therefore entitled to an order for the amount he is claiming, being the agreed amount for the purchase. Ms Shelton’s claim for exemplary damages
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure that he has an agent in New Zealand. Failure to appoint an agent is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum sum of $1,500.00 may be ordered (section 16A of the Act).
Exemplary damages are different to compensatory damages. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine and are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If the unlawful act is proved then, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act.
On 5 May 2024, Ms Shelton gave Mr Narang a 28 day notice to end the tenancy. Then on 19 May 2024, Mr Narang left New Zealand to reside in Australia. He said that he was aware of his obligation to appoint an agent if outside New Zealand for more than 21 days but given that Ms Shelton’s tenancy was to end soon after he left New Zealand he decided to appoint an agent for the new tenancy (after Ms Shelton’s tenancy ended in approximately two weeks’ time). Ms Shelton did not move out when her 28-day notice expired and she asked Mr Narang to stay on longer.
Given the particular circumstances here I do not consider it an appropriate case for exemplary damages. I accept Mr Narang’s explanation for not appointing an agent and given the uncertainties caused by Ms Shelton as to when she was vacating, I consider it reasonable that Mr Narang wait until her tenancy ended. Ms Shelton accepts that there was little impact on her of Mr Narang not having an agent in New Zealand. They were able to continue to communicate using email and cell phone. It is also clear that Mr Narang was happy to come to New Zealand on short notice to deal with any issues regarding the tenancy. This is shown by him having booked flights to New Zealand to complete tenancy documentation for Ms Shelton’s daughter before she changed her mind regarding taking over the tenancy.
Ms Shelton’s application for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Tribunal application fee
Mr Narang has been mostly successful in his claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5019583 — net $613.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electricity supply costs	$126.00	Electricity supply costs
Rubbish removal	$60.00	Rubbish removal
Cleaning	$500.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$1,000.00	Repairs
Carpet damage	$400.00	Carpet damage
Chattels removed	$900.00	Chattels removed
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$613.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$613.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $613.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6148142-010) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant, Ms Shelton, applied for payment of the bond and exemplary damages for failure by the landlord, Mr Narang, to appoint an agent when out of New Zealand for more than 21 days.
Mr Narang cross applied for power supply costs and for compensation, in particular: • Cleaning the premises: $750.00 • Removing rubbish: $60.00 • Repairing walls, door frame and wardrobe doors: $1,000.00 • Replace the carpets in three rooms: insurance excess payable ($550 per claim) • Remedying a broken oven knob: $126.50 • Repairing damage caused by attaching a boxing bag to the garage: $1,000.00 • Chattel/furniture removed by tenant: $900.00
Ms Shelton accepts the claim for power costs. The claim for cleaning
There was no dispute that Ms Shelton agreed with Mr Narang that he could have the premises professionally cleaned by a contractor he had suggested. Mr Narang provided an invoice from the cleaner for $750.00. However, I am satisfied that there was an agreement between the parties that Ms Shelton would only be required to pay $500.00 towards the cost of the cleaning. The agreement is set out in emails between the parties dated 12 and 13 September 2024. The claim for rubbish removal
Ms Shelton did not dispute that the Council rubbish bins required emptying and cleaning at the end of the tenancy but she claims that the rubbish was put there by her daughter (Leila). There was apparently an oral agreement between Ms Shelton, Mr Narang and Leila made before Ms Shelton’s tenancy ended that Leila would take over the tenancy from 2 September. Leila moved some possessions into the premises before the start date (with Mr Narang’s consent) but it appears she changed her mind and no formal tenancy was entered into.
Given the circumstances I am not satisfied that Ms Shelton has provided sufficient evidence to establish that she is not liable for the removal of the rubbish. Moreover, there is evidence (in particular, in Ms Shelton’s email to Mr Narang dated 12 September) that she agreed to pay the $60.00 claimed to have the rubbish removed and the bins cleaned. The claims for damage
To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises a 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, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Carelessness is not defined in the Act but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, was ‘exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances’.
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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
Ms Shelton accepts the damage to the garage door (which she said was caused by her son), the damage to the kitchen wall, and the damage to the door frame (holes caused by nails). She also accepts that she put vinyl on the wardrobe doors (which damaged the doors when it was removed). However, she disputes the amount claimed for repairing the damage. She says that additional work was done by the contractor for which she should not be liable.
Ms Shelton also claims that the kitchen wall was damaged accidentally when she was moving possessions out of the property. However, I am satisfied that the damage was more likely than not caused carelessly. I consider that a reasonable prudent tenant would take care to not cause damage to the walls when shifting furniture or possessions.
Mr Narang accepts that there was other work done by the contractor than the damage he is claiming, and he has therefore reduced the amount on the invoice for the work ($1,400.00) to $1,000.00. In the circumstances, I consider this a reasonable sum to compensate Mr Narang for the repairs that Ms Shelton is liable for. It seems that Ms Shelton also considered it reasonable as she agreed to pay Mr Narang this sum in her 12 September email for the damage.
Ms Shelton accepts that she spilt hair dye on the bedroom carpet, and she is responsible for the stain to the lounge carpet (which was probably caused by water from a pot plant). However, she claims that the damage to the carpets was caused accidentally. I do not agree. I consider a reasonable prudent careful tenant would take care to ensure that hair dye was not spilt on the carpet and pot plants were not placed or watered in a manner that could cause damage.
Mr Narang also claims that the carpet in another bedroom was damaged, and he claims $550.00 for each room (being the insurance excess payable for the damage in each room).
Ms Shelton said that she has no knowledge of any damage to the carpet in the additional bedroom and Mr Narang was unable say with any specificity what the damage was and there was also no evidence, such as a photograph, to support the damage. The claim to replace the carpet in that room is therefore dismissed.
The claim is for the cost to replace the carpets (up to the policy excess payable) although Mr Narang has not yet had the carpets replaced. However, I am not persuaded that the stains have so badly damaged the carpets that they require replacement. In the circumstances I consider a fair sum to compensate Mr Narang for the damage to the carpets is $400.00.
Mr Narang claims the sum of $1,000.00, based on an oral quote he said he received, to repair damage to the garage caused by Ms Shelton (or another person with her permission) attaching a boxing bag to it. Ms Shelton accepts the damage but claims that she also had an oral quote to have it repaired and this quote was $400.00 or $600.00 if the contractor encountered difficulties with the repair. Mr Narang has not yet had the work done and given the uncertainties on the actual cost to repair the damage I consider it reasonable that Ms Shelton pay the amount of the lowest ‘quote’ provided by the parties for the repair.
Mr Narang claims that the oven knob was broken during the tenancy. He employed a contractor to investigate and to replace the knob. However, he said that the contractor told him that a replacement knob was unable to be found given the age of the oven. Mr Narang claims the cost of the contractors call out fee being $126.50. The oven is still operational despite the issue with the knob, but Mr Narang said that he will have to replace the oven sometime in the future. Mr Narang claims the cost of the contractors call out fee being $126.50.
Ms Shelton denies any knowledge of the issue with the knob and suggests that it could have been done by someone, such as the cleaner, after the tenancy ended.
I dismiss the claim for the damage to the knob. It is not clear what the damage is and therefore whether it could simply be due to ordinary wear and tear. Moreover, I am not satisfied that Mr Narang has provided sufficient evidence to establish that the knob was damaged during the tenancy. Furniture removed by Ms Shelton
Ms Shelton accepts that at the end of the tenancy she removed some furniture belonging to Mr Narang. It seems that Ms Shelton now does not want to keep the furniture and wants to return it to Mr Narang but Mr Narang does not now want it returned.
I am satisfied that the parties came to a binding and enforceable agreement in September 2024 whereby Ms Shelton would purchase the furniture from Mr Narang for a sum of $900.00. Mr Narang is therefore entitled to an order for the amount he is claiming, being the agreed amount for the purchase. Ms Shelton’s claim for exemplary damages
A landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure that he has an agent in New Zealand. Failure to appoint an agent is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum sum of $1,500.00 may be ordered (section 16A of the Act).
Exemplary damages are different to compensatory damages. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine and are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If the unlawful act is proved then, before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act.
On 5 May 2024, Ms Shelton gave Mr Narang a 28 day notice to end the tenancy. Then on 19 May 2024, Mr Narang left New Zealand to reside in Australia. He said that he was aware of his obligation to appoint an agent if outside New Zealand for more than 21 days but given that Ms Shelton’s tenancy was to end soon after he left New Zealand he decided to appoint an agent for the new tenancy (after Ms Shelton’s tenancy ended in approximately two weeks’ time). Ms Shelton did not move out when her 28-day notice expired and she asked Mr Narang to stay on longer.
Given the particular circumstances here I do not consider it an appropriate case for exemplary damages. I accept Mr Narang’s explanation for not appointing an agent and given the uncertainties caused by Ms Shelton as to when she was vacating, I consider it reasonable that Mr Narang wait until her tenancy ended. Ms Shelton accepts that there was little impact on her of Mr Narang not having an agent in New Zealand. They were able to continue to communicate using email and cell phone. It is also clear that Mr Narang was happy to come to New Zealand on short notice to deal with any issues regarding the tenancy. This is shown by him having booked flights to New Zealand to complete tenancy documentation for Ms Shelton’s daughter before she changed her mind regarding taking over the tenancy.
Ms Shelton’s application for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Tribunal application fee
Mr Narang has been mostly successful in his claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019583 — Property damage at 162 Travis Road, New Brighton, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019583 — Property damage at 162 Travis Road, New Brighton, Christchurch 8083

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