How much money was awarded in case 5047569?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Remote: $62.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Shelf: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Wall: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5047569?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5047569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11557683-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5047569?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door Remote: $62.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Shelf: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Wall: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5047569?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5047569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11557683-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5047569 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5047569 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5047569 — net $288.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repair brickwork	$550.00		Repair brickwork
Garage door remote	$62.00		Garage door remote
Repairs: Garage wall	$200.00		Repairs: Garage wall
Repairs: Bedroom Shelf	$200.00		Repairs: Bedroom Shelf
Exemplary damages minor alterations	$200.00		Exemplary damages minor alterations
Partial Bond unilaterally refunded to landlord		$1,500.00	Partial Bond unilaterally refunded to landlord
Total award	$1,212.00	$1,500.00
Net award		$288.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$288.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $288.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $1,220.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to [The tenant/s].

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 26 February 2025. The property manager from [The property management company] attended as agent [The landlord/s]: DescriptionLandlordTenant Repair brickwork$550.00 Garage door remote$62.00 Repairs: Garage wall$200.00 Repairs: Bedroom Shelf$200.00 Exemplary damages minor alterations$200.00 Partial Bond unilaterally refunded to landlord $1,500.00 Total award$1212.00$1,500.00 Net award $288.00 Bond balance refunded to tenant $1,220.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $288.00

The tenancy began in June 2022 and ended on 12 May 2024.

The tenants applied for refund of the bond in October 2024.

The landlord has cross applied for compensation and damages as follows: (a)Damaged garden brick edging (b)Damage to toilet wall (c)Damage to lounge wall (d)Damage to bedroom wall (e)Replace garage remote (f)Reinstate garage wall (g)Reinstate bedroom wall (h)Exemplary damages for not returning the premises to substantially the same condition after minor alterations

At the hearing the tenants challenged the date of exit inspection photographs in respect of the toilet and bedroom walls.

The parties were given time following the hearing to file further evidence and submissions.

On Friday 28 February 2025 the landlord filed further evidence as follows: - evidence that the photograph of the toilet wall was taken on 14 February 2024 - evidence of a different photograph taken at the end of the tenancy on 13 May 2024 of the bedroom wall showing the wall clear and the marks touched up. - a copy of the brick repair invoice that was referred to at the hearing - a copy of a start of tenancy email to the tenants referring to entry photographs but these were not included. Tenant claim

The bond belongs to the tenant unless the landlord is successful with a claim against the bond.

The tenants advised that following the end of the tenancy the landlord asked them to sign a bond refund form splitting the bond and paying $1500 to the landlord. They refused to sign this as they disputed the landlord’s partial claim on the bond.

The tenants advised that they discovered after filing these proceedings that rather than filing a claim in the Tribunal the landlord lodged a unilateral claim with the bond centre for $1500 of the bond and this was refunded to the landlord without the tenant’s knowledge or consent.

The landlord confirmed making a unilateral application for the bond.

There is currently $1220.00 of the bond still held at the bond centre and $1500.00 in the possession of the landlord. The Tribunal will consider the total bond of $2720.00 when hearing these claims.

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.

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.

The landlord claims that damage was caused during the tenancy. The Tribunal will consider each claim in turn as follows:

Damaged garden brick edging – the landlord claims that the tenant damaged the garden brick edging and also painted it white without consent from the landlord. The landlord seeks partial reimbursement of cost of reinstating the bricks in the sum of $550.00. The tenants agree that they intentionally painted the garden brick edging but deny damaging the bricks. They stated that the brickwork was old and they were tidying the premises for their festival. Having considered the evidence including the before and after photographs and the invoice for the work done to reinstate the bricks in the sum of $1098.32, I find that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the bricks were damaged during the tenancy by being painted without consent and order compensation in the sum of $550.00 as sought.

Damage to toilet wall - the landlord claims that the tenants damaged the toilet wall. The landlord provided an entry photo and a photo taken on 13 December 2023 showing a hole in the wall obviously caused by the door handle. A further photograph taken on 14 February 2024 showing the wall patched and primed was provided. There was no exit inspection photograph provided. The tenants disputed liability and stated that the damage was caused as the door stop came off. They stated that they patched and repaired the hole and it was painted by the end of the tenancy. The landlord sought compensation in the sum of $400.00. This is based on an estimate. The only invoice provided is for the sum of $7800.00 for a full interior paint which does not itemise how this amount is calculated. The landlord advised that the premises were last repainted in 2019. I do not have evidence of the condition that the toilet wall was left in at the end of the tenancy or of the cost of repair if needed, therefore, I am not satisfied the landlord has proved the claim on the balance of probabilities.

Damage to lounge wall – the landlord claimed that the lounge wall paintwork was damaged and sought the sum of $1200 in compensation. The landlord provided entry inspection photographs and photographs taken at the end of the tenancy showing some small marks on the lounge wall and a darkened area on the wall near the high ceiling. The tenants denied causing damage to the lounge wall and claimed that any marks were wear and tear and that the darkened patch was a result of moisture issues in the lounge. The tenants provided photographs showing moisture ingress through the nearby sliding door and a crack on the wall at the corner of the window. Having carefully considered the evidence including that the paintwork was five years old I find that the landlord has not proved that there is damage to the lounge walls beyond fair wear and tear.

Damage to bedroom wall – the landlord claimed that there was damage to the paintwork on two walls of one bedroom and sought $600.00 in compensation. The landlord produced photographs at the hearing of marks and a picture on the wall in the bedroom and claimed this was how the room was left at the end of the tenancy. The tenants disputed the date the photographs were taken and claimed that they cleared the wall and cleaned the marks off before the tenancy ended. After the hearing the landlord provided a photograph which looked different to the ones earlier provided which showed the wall clear and the marks touched up. The landlord has since repainted the entire of the premises to prepare the property for sale. Given the conflicting evidence provided by the landlord I am not satisfied that this claim is proved to the required standard.

Replace garage remote – the landlord provided a photograph of one of the garage remotes returned cellotaped together. The landlord provided evidence of the remote being purchased prior to the tenancy and an invoice for the cost of replacement. The tenant consented to the amount sought in the sum of $62.00 and this is ordered by consent.

Reinstate garage and bedroom wall – The tenants installed a television on the garage wall without consent from the landlord and did not fully reinstate the wall at the end of the tenancy. The tenants removed a shelf from a bedroom wall without consent from the landlord and did not reinstate this at the end of the tenancy. Photographs were provided. The tenants agree that these alterations were done without consent. The landlord seeks the sum of $400 for each repair totalling $800, however, these amounts are based on an estimate only. When an estimate is provided the Tribunal takes a conservative approach and in this case as the paintwork was five years old half of the amount sought will be ordered being $200 for each repair totalling $400.00. Exemplary damages for minor alterations

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has failed to return the premises to a condition that was substantially the same as the condition prior to a minor change being made by the tenant.

On or before the expiry of a tenancy the tenant must return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition the premises were in prior to the minor change being made. See 42B(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 See section 42B(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenants agree that they made minor alterations to the premises without asking for consent namely by installing a wall mounted television and removing a shelf already installed by the landlord and they did not reinstate the premises to a condition substantially the same. I find they have committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

I have considered the evidence in this case including that the tenants acted intentionally and although some attempt to remedy was made in the garage, no attempt to reinstate was made for the bedroom shelf. The effect on the landlord was the inconvenience and cost of reinstating the premises at the end of the tenancy. I find that it is appropriate to order exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale in the sum of $200.00 for the breach. Filing fee/Suppression

The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant has applied for suppression and been substantially successful with their claim. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression of all party details in any publication of this order.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5047569 — net $288.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repair brickwork	$550.00		Repair brickwork
Garage door remote	$62.00		Garage door remote
Repairs: Garage wall	$200.00		Repairs: Garage wall
Repairs: Bedroom Shelf	$200.00		Repairs: Bedroom Shelf
Exemplary damages minor alterations	$200.00		Exemplary damages minor alterations
Partial Bond unilaterally refunded to landlord		$1,500.00	Partial Bond unilaterally refunded to landlord
Total award	$1,212.00	$1,500.00
Net award		$288.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$288.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $288.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $1,220.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately to [The tenant/s].

Reasons

The tenancy began in June 2022 and ended on 12 May 2024.

The tenants applied for refund of the bond in October 2024.

At the hearing the tenants challenged the date of exit inspection photographs in respect of the toilet and bedroom walls.

The parties were given time following the hearing to file further evidence and submissions.

The bond belongs to the tenant unless the landlord is successful with a claim against the bond.

The landlord confirmed making a unilateral application for the bond.

There is currently $1220.00 of the bond still held at the bond centre and $1500.00 in the possession of the landlord. The Tribunal will consider the total bond of $2720.00 when hearing these claims.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that damage was caused during the tenancy. The Tribunal will consider each claim in turn as follows:

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has failed to return the premises to a condition that was substantially the same as the condition prior to a minor change being made by the tenant.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 See section 42B(6) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5047569 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5047569 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions