How much money was awarded in case 5054248?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $379.55 awarded to landlord; Celling And Walls Bedroom Three: $167.00 awarded to landlord; Ceramic Cooktop: $167.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5054248?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5054248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11395176-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5054248?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $379.55 awarded to landlord; Celling And Walls Bedroom Three: $167.00 awarded to landlord; Ceramic Cooktop: $167.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5054248?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5054248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11395176-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5054248 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5054248 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 5054248 — net $1,040.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Repairs: ceramic cooktop	$167.00	Repairs: ceramic cooktop
Repairs: celling and walls bedroom three	$167.00	Repairs: celling and walls bedroom three
Lawns	$379.55	Lawns
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,040.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,040.55

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

Shahzada Mahmood, Mohammad Asad and Salma Shahzad to pay [The landlord/s] $1,040.55 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,040.55 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $899.45 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Shahzada Mahmood, Mohammad Asad and Salma Shahzad immediately.

Reasons

Property Managers [ Redacted] appeared for the landlord. Mr Mahmood and Ms Asad appeared for the tenant. The Tribunal was assisted by an Urdu interpreter.

The tenancy commenced on 18 March 2029 and was for a fixed term, after which it became periodic. The tenant gave notice and the tenancy ended on 16 August 2024. On 15 October 2024, the tenant filed a claim seeking release of the bond. On 30 October 2024, the landlord filed a claim alleging that the tenant had: i. Failed to leave the property reasonably clean, ($523.25) ii. Damaged the lawn on either side of the driveway, ($479.55), iii. Damaged the ceramic cook top (insurance excess $500.00), iv. Damaged the ceilings and walls in one of the bedrooms ($500.00).

In brackets is the compensation sought by the landlord.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Cleaning

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) of the Act.

The Act does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, and not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy. Determining whether the tenant has failed to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy, and remove all rubbish, will involve an objective assessment. The Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

The property was built around 2010 and consists of three bedrooms, an ensuite, a main bathroom, an open plan kitchen / dining room, a lounge, and a double garage, which houses the laundry.

The landlord has produced a pre tenancy inspection report dated 15 March 2019, which includes photographs of the interior and exterior. The property was in a reasonably clean condition, however, there is staining to the carpet and the walls showed signs of wear and tear.

The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy, the tenant failed to leave the property reasonably clean. The landlord has produced an end of tenancy report dated 19 August 2024. The report is in the same format as the pre tenancy report, allowing the Tribunal to make a proper before and after comparison. The landlord’s claim is cleaning and does not include the carpet.

The tenant states that after giving notice they were visited by the owner of the property, who had a tradesperson and a carpet sample. The tenant states that the owner told them not to bother cleaning the main bathroom as they intended replacing the vanity, which had been water damaged, as well as the vinyl flooring in the kitchen. The tenant relied on the owner’s statement and did not clean these areas. Additionally, they did not clean the skirting boards believing that the carpet was going to be replaced.

Apart from these areas, the tenant claim they cleaned everything else. However, the tenant states they are prepared to release $140.00 from the bond for any areas they may have missed.

The tenant also feels that they should have been given the opportunity to return and complete further cleaning at a lower cost than what the landlord is now claiming.

The landlord states that while the vanity was replaced, the rest of the bathroom, including the shower and toilet should have been cleaned, but was not. The landlord also states that at the end of the tenancy the tenant was given a list of areas that required cleaning at the end of the tenancy. Decision

The owner and the tenant conversed in English, which is not their first language. It is possible that the tenant misunderstood their obligations regarding the main bathroom. Based on the photographs produced, my assessment is that despite their best endeavours the tenant’s cleaning was insufficient, and they failed to return the property in a reasonably clean condition. The landlord is not obliged to allow the tenant to return and complete further cleaning after the tenancy ends.

Taking these matters into account, I reduce the cleaning claim and award the landlord compensation of $300.00. Damage Law

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.

Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).

If this is established that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant must prove, to avoid liability, that they or someone at the property with their permission did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

Tenants are liable for the full 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.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and occurred after 27 August 2019, 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).

In addressing carelessness, the question is whether the tenant exercised a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective, not based on the subjective opinions of the tenant or landlord.

In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The primary goal of compensation is to return the landlord to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. If compensation claimed would result in the landlord being better off than there were originally, the Tribunal may reduce the award to reflect betterment. In calculating any depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Ceramic Cooktop

The landlord has produced a photograph of the ceramic cooktop taken at the end of tenancy inspection. The photograph shows a shallow chip (approximately 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm) along with 4 or 5 other smaller chips. The landlord has produced a photograph showing the cooktop at the commencement of the tenancy. Although it is showing signs of wear and tear, there are no visible chips or similar damage. The landlord made a successful insurance claim and are seeking the excess of $500.00.

The tenant states that around December 2023 the rangehood above the cooktop was replaced. The tenant states a tradesperson dropped a heavy sharp object on the cooktop causing damage, which they reported to a former property manager.

The landlord produced a photograph of the cooktop taken on 18 August 2022, showing the damage. The photograph was taken before the rangehood was replaced. The landlord also produced a photograph taken during an inspection on 18 November 2021 showing a gas burner, which was prohibited under the agreement, sitting on top of the damaged element. The landlord argues that the damage is consistent with having been caused by a heavy object such as the gas burner being used. Decision

In this case I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. Having considered all of the evidence, I prefer the landlord’s explanation as the more likely. I am also satisfied that the damage was the result of carelessness on the part of the tenant.

Dealing with betterment and depreciation, cooktops in residential rental properties are chattels that are subject to depreciation. Stoves and ovens have an estimated useful life span of around eight years. At the commencement of the tenancy the cooktop was showing signs of wear and tear but otherwise in a reasonable working condition. However, for depreciation and betterment purposes, the cooktop was past its estimated useful life span. Therefore, there has been an element of betterment for the landlord. I reduce the claim by two thirds and award the landlord $167.00 toward the excess. Lawn

The landlord has produced a photograph showing damage to the lawn on both sides of the concrete driveway. They claim this damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, likely the result of vehicles being repeatedly driven onto the lawn. The pre tenancy inspection photographs do not show any such damage.

The tenant denies that vehicles were parked on the lawn and states that the damage is the result of dry weather which has killed the lawn. The tenant states that there are other similar areas at the rear of the house.

The landlord produced a photograph taken during the tenancy showing a vehicle parked on the lawn. The tenant stated it was a one-off incident. Decision

In my assessment, the damage is consistent with vehicles being repeatedly driven off the driveway onto the lawn. The photograph produced showing the damage also shows the property managers vehicle parked on the lawn. Parking off the driveway was likely a common practice. While the damage was likely the result of carelessness, I find that there was also an element of fair wear and tear. I reduce the claim by $100.00 and award the landlord $379.55 to repair the lawn. Ceiling and walls in bedroom three.

During the tenancy, the tenant hung decorations from the ceiling and walls in the third bedroom using adhesive hooks. When these were removed damage occurred. The landlord states that the tenant repainted patches of wall and the entire ceiling but did so with a darker, oil-based paint not intended for interior use. The landlord has produced photographs of the walls and ceilings confirming this.

There is no dispute that the walls and doors had pre-existing minor damage. The landlord states that once the property was vacant, the owner took the opportunity to repaint the walls and ceilings. On that basis, there was initially no intention to make any claims against the tenant for damage occurring during the tenancy. However, it was later discovered that the paint used by the tenant in the bedroom could not be painted over, requiring the walls and ceilings to be undercoated first. This resulted in an additional expense. The landlord is claiming for the cost of undercoating the walls and ceiling. The invoice also includes the cost of two finishing coats of paint.

The tenant states that during the tenancy a contractor repainted the interior of the garage, and that they had used the left-over paint in the bedroom, believing that if it was suitable for the garage, it was also suitable for the house.

The landlord states that the garage was repainted during the tenancy after the tenant had previously attempted to repair damage by repainting walls. The landlord has produced photographs showing the garage walls before they were repainted by the contractor. The paint used by the tenant in the bedroom appears to be identical to that they have used in the garage. It is the same mismatched colour, which was then painted over by the landlord. The landlord states that the tenant has used the same paint twice and not the one applied by the contractor. Decision

The paint used by the tenant in the bedroom is the same colour and appears identical to what they previously used in the garage. I am not satisfied that the tenant has used the contractor’s paint. If they had done so the colour would match. It clearly does not.

The landlord repainted the walls, as they had intended to do in any event. The loss in this case is that associated with the undercoating. The invoice covers the undercoat, and then two coats of topcoat. I therefore divide the invoice by three and award the landlord $167.00. Costs

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.

The landlord seeks name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression. The tenant does not seek name suppression and no grounds have been advanced.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5054248 — net $1,040.55 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Repairs: ceramic cooktop	$167.00	Repairs: ceramic cooktop
Repairs: celling and walls bedroom three	$167.00	Repairs: celling and walls bedroom three
Lawns	$379.55	Lawns
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,040.55
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,040.55

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

Shahzada Mahmood, Mohammad Asad and Salma Shahzad to pay [The landlord/s] $1,040.55 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Property Managers [ Redacted] appeared for the landlord. Mr Mahmood and Ms Asad appeared for the tenant. The Tribunal was assisted by an Urdu interpreter.

In brackets is the compensation sought by the landlord.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Cleaning

The property was built around 2010 and consists of three bedrooms, an ensuite, a main bathroom, an open plan kitchen / dining room, a lounge, and a double garage, which houses the laundry.

Apart from these areas, the tenant claim they cleaned everything else. However, the tenant states they are prepared to release $140.00 from the bond for any areas they may have missed.

The tenant also feels that they should have been given the opportunity to return and complete further cleaning at a lower cost than what the landlord is now claiming.

Taking these matters into account, I reduce the cleaning claim and award the landlord compensation of $300.00. Damage Law

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.

The landlord produced a photograph taken during the tenancy showing a vehicle parked on the lawn. The tenant stated it was a one-off incident. Decision

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.

The landlord seeks name suppression.

The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression. The tenant does not seek name suppression and no grounds have been advanced.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5054248 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5054248 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions