What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5025323 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 5025323?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5025323?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5025323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11250900-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5025323 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 5025323?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Wall: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5025323?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5025323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11250900-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

62 Brooke Ridge Rise, East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5025323 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5025323 — net $310.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: wall	$460.00		Repairs: wall
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00		Lawns and Garden work
Compensation (by consent): insurance excess		$250.00	Compensation (by consent): insurance excess
Total award	$560.00	$250.00
Net award	$310.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$310.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Govan Family Trust $310.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,099.50 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For $3100.00 Govan Family Trust [The tenant/s]: $789.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond. The landlord has filed a cross- application seeking compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Background
Some time during this tenancy the roof leaked and the tenant’s television was damaged. The tenant made a claim with their insurer and paid an excess of $250.00. The landlord has agreed to reimburse the tenant this cost.
The tenancy ended on 16 September 2024.
The tenant gave evidence that they spent $400.00 to have the property professionally cleaned, including the carpet. The tenant says that they also paid $160.00 for the lawns to be mowed and garden tidied.
The tenant claims that an exit inspection was completed on 16 September 2024 with the relevant property manager. Both parties gave evidence that it was agreed between the tenant and property manager that the tenant would be afforded the opportunity to return to the property and remedy some issues highlighted in the final inspection. These issues were: a. Lawns and garden b. Scratch on the wall in the lounge
To the frustration of the tenant, the owner subsequently declined to allow the tenant access to the property to remedy the above matters and instead paid professionals to attend to the work.
The owner intended to place the property on the market for sale and spent $1,725.00 on garden maintenance and $460.00 to repair the wall.
At the hearing, the landlord sought compensation as follows: a. Garden maintenance $800.00 b. Repair scratch on wall $400.00

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 left the inside of the premises in a very reasonably clean and tidy condition. The focus of the hearing was on the garden.
The landlord provided photographs of the garden taken at the beginning of the tenancy, which show it in a clean and tidy state. The lawns are freshly mowed and no weeds are present. The landlord also provided photographs of the garden taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show that lawn clippings had been left on the lawn, the hedge was overgrown and weeds are present, particularly in the back garden. Based on these photographs, I am satisfied that the garden was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy state. I do not accept the landlord’s submission that $800.00 worth of labour was required to bring the garden to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Based on the photographs provided, I consider that no longer than 1 hour of labour would have been required to bring the garden to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The Tribunal sees many applications for lawn and garden maintenance. The average hourly rate is $80.00 - $100.00 per hour. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation for lawns and garden maintenance is granted for an adjusted amount of $100.00.

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.
The tenant accepts that they caused a scratch approximately 1.5 metres long to the wall in the lounge. The tenant states that they had a recliner chair in the lounge, which made contact with the wall when reclined and caused the scratch. Based on the evidence given by the tenant, I find the damage to be careless not intentional.
The landlord provided an invoice to repair the wall for $460.00. The tenant states that the work undertaken by the painter included other work, not just repairing the scratch on the wall. The tenant submitted a text message which they said was from the painter. In this text message, the painter stated that the invoice included painting the ceiling. This text message was not filed before the hearing. I gave the property manager an opportunity to call the owner. The owner advised the property manager that they believed the invoice was for the work undertaken to repair the scratch on the wall only. The invoice records “interior fixing damage wall.”
The tenant did not call the painter as a witness and therefore, they were not available to be cross-examined. In the absence of direct evidence from the painter, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the invoice included time spent on remedial work other than the scratched wall.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the wall is granted in full for $460.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression.
The tenant requested name suppression in their written application. I consider that the tenant has been substantially successful in their claim for a refund of the bond and therefore, I have granted them name suppression. Filing fee Both parties have been substantially successful in their respective claims and therefore, I do not order that one party reimburse the other the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5025323 — net $310.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: wall	$460.00		Repairs: wall
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00		Lawns and Garden work
Compensation (by consent): insurance excess		$250.00	Compensation (by consent): insurance excess
Total award	$560.00	$250.00
Net award	$310.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$310.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Govan Family Trust $310.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,099.50 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For $3100.00 Govan Family Trust [The tenant/s]: $789.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond. The landlord has filed a cross- application seeking compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Background
Some time during this tenancy the roof leaked and the tenant’s television was damaged. The tenant made a claim with their insurer and paid an excess of $250.00. The landlord has agreed to reimburse the tenant this cost.
The tenancy ended on 16 September 2024.
The tenant gave evidence that they spent $400.00 to have the property professionally cleaned, including the carpet. The tenant says that they also paid $160.00 for the lawns to be mowed and garden tidied.
The tenant claims that an exit inspection was completed on 16 September 2024 with the relevant property manager. Both parties gave evidence that it was agreed between the tenant and property manager that the tenant would be afforded the opportunity to return to the property and remedy some issues highlighted in the final inspection. These issues were: a. Lawns and garden b. Scratch on the wall in the lounge
To the frustration of the tenant, the owner subsequently declined to allow the tenant access to the property to remedy the above matters and instead paid professionals to attend to the work.
The owner intended to place the property on the market for sale and spent $1,725.00 on garden maintenance and $460.00 to repair the wall.
At the hearing, the landlord sought compensation as follows: a. Garden maintenance $800.00 b. Repair scratch on wall $400.00

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 left the inside of the premises in a very reasonably clean and tidy condition. The focus of the hearing was on the garden.
The landlord provided photographs of the garden taken at the beginning of the tenancy, which show it in a clean and tidy state. The lawns are freshly mowed and no weeds are present. The landlord also provided photographs of the garden taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs show that lawn clippings had been left on the lawn, the hedge was overgrown and weeds are present, particularly in the back garden. Based on these photographs, I am satisfied that the garden was not left in a reasonably clean and tidy state. I do not accept the landlord’s submission that $800.00 worth of labour was required to bring the garden to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. Based on the photographs provided, I consider that no longer than 1 hour of labour would have been required to bring the garden to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The Tribunal sees many applications for lawn and garden maintenance. The average hourly rate is $80.00 - $100.00 per hour. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for compensation for lawns and garden maintenance is granted for an adjusted amount of $100.00.

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.
The tenant accepts that they caused a scratch approximately 1.5 metres long to the wall in the lounge. The tenant states that they had a recliner chair in the lounge, which made contact with the wall when reclined and caused the scratch. Based on the evidence given by the tenant, I find the damage to be careless not intentional.
The landlord provided an invoice to repair the wall for $460.00. The tenant states that the work undertaken by the painter included other work, not just repairing the scratch on the wall. The tenant submitted a text message which they said was from the painter. In this text message, the painter stated that the invoice included painting the ceiling. This text message was not filed before the hearing. I gave the property manager an opportunity to call the owner. The owner advised the property manager that they believed the invoice was for the work undertaken to repair the scratch on the wall only. The invoice records “interior fixing damage wall.”
The tenant did not call the painter as a witness and therefore, they were not available to be cross-examined. In the absence of direct evidence from the painter, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the invoice included time spent on remedial work other than the scratched wall.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to repair the wall is granted in full for $460.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Suppression
The landlord did not request name suppression.
The tenant requested name suppression in their written application. I consider that the tenant has been substantially successful in their claim for a refund of the bond and therefore, I have granted them name suppression. Filing fee Both parties have been substantially successful in their respective claims and therefore, I do not order that one party reimburse the other the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5025323 — Property damage at 62 Brooke Ridge Rise, East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5025323 — Property damage at 62 Brooke Ridge Rise, East Tamaki Heights, Auckland 2016

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