What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5060454?

The tribunal order states: Rangi Tuhura must pay Andruth Pirani $990.30 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5060454?

Glass: $1,290.30 awarded to landlord; Plastering: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5060454?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5060454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11340811-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5060454?

The tribunal order states: Rangi Tuhura must pay Andruth Pirani $990.30 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5060454?

Glass: $1,290.30 awarded to landlord; Plastering: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5060454?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5060454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11340811-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Waldegrave Street, Palmerston North, Palmerston North Tenancy Tribunal Case 5060454 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5060454 — net $990.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Glass	$1,290.30	Repairs: Glass
Repairs: plastering	$200.00	Repairs: plastering
Rubbish removal	$230.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$990.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$990.30

Order

Rangi Tuhura must pay Andruth Pirani $990.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy which began on 19 May 2020 and ended on 23 October 2024.
During the tenancy there had been some disagreement about mould in the premises and who was responsible for it. The landlord’s mother and the tenant had encountered some conflict. It appears that both parties were ill-informed about their rights and responsibilities as tenant and landlord.
The landlord sought $5,375.50 for broken windows, holes in walls and cleaning and $400 for rubbish removal.
The tenant said that she had agreed to release of the bond on the basis that no claims would be made. A written agreement to that effect would have helped establish that assertion. Given there was some damage to the premises, it seems unlikely that such an agreement would have been made.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photos showing debris left around the property and a skip bin. He provided invoices for the following: a. Skip bin: $210. b. Painting and cleaning $3,800. An email outlined the details of all work undertaken.
The tenant agreed that they had not removed all rubbish about the property and agreed to pay $210.00 for a skip and $20.00 for rubbish bags.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning included painting and was outlined in the painter’s detailed email. It reads: Description of completed interior works 9 Waldegrave St Palmerston North 1 , Bedroom 1 extensive cleaning especially on ceiling to remove stickers and other pollutants, dust , fly mess and grime etc also cleaning of cupboards and Architraves from dust and grime and felt pen , then sealing up walls, Architraves and plastering indentations and holes and then sand filler spot prime then 2 top coats on walls cupboards and Architraves 2 , Bedroom 2 Extension cleaning especially on ceiling to remove mould that was caused by lack of ventilation and cleaning also to walls, Architraves, window sashes , wardrobe and make free from dust grime and other foreign matter, there was also an attempt to fix a large hole next to light switch that required further work- taping , plastering, sanding and also plaster indentations and holes in various places all surfaces required a sealer undercoat followed by 2 top coats except ceiling. 3, Bedroom 3 Extensive cleaning especially on ceiling and make free from pollutants, fly mess, grime etc also further cleaning was required on window sashes, Architraves, plastering was required to indentations, holes and cracks followed by sanding and sealing all areas and 2 top coats except ceiling. 4, Hall (passageway) Exstensive cleaning to this area was required because of flies mess that was particularly bad, plastering was required especially on damaged corners and indentations and holes followed by sanding and a sealer undercoat and 2 top coats on all surfaces.
Lounge, kitchen, dining/laundry area, Extensive cleaning was required to all areas to remove grime , flies mess, and other pollutants, holes and pin holes and indentations which were particularly bad in lounge room required fillings and sanding, then sealer to all areas and spot priming was required to plaster followed by 2 top coats to all areas except ceilings 6, Bathroom, required Extensive cleaning to remove pollutants and then painting to all areas which required a sealer and a top coat.
The tenant provided photographs of the premises at the end of the tenancy which showed the premises to be reasonably clean and tidy. Apart from one dirty vent in the ceiling, the landlord provided no photos showing that cleaning was required.
The cleaning outlined by the painter is above and beyond what is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. No order is made for compensation for cleaning.
The amount ordered for rubbish removal is proved.

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.
In addition to the invoice for painting outlined above, the landlord provided an invoice for replacement of windows that had been repaired by the tenant during the tenancy: $508.30 and a quote for $782 for replacement of broken windows.
The photographs showed windows that had not been repaired in a workman- like manner, the putty being clumsily applied and finished, as well as photos showing cracked windows. The tenant agreed to pay $1,290.30 for the repair of the windows.
As for the painting, the landlord must prove that this was required because of the intentional or careless actions of the tenant and more than fair wear and tear.
The photographs provided by the tenant and the landlord show that the wallpaper had come off in places in one room. The tenant said that this occurred when they were cleaning the mould off the walls. They thought that the mould was because the home did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord thought the mould was because the tenants did not ventilate or clean adequately.
Because this tenancy began in 2020, the Healthy Homes Standards regarding ventilation, draught stopping and moisture ingress do not apply. In any event, the presence of mould does not amount to a breach of any of the standards.
It is plausible that when the tenant was cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy the wallpaper ripped. In the photographs it was evident that this is an older property and the wallpaper looked very tired. The landlord did not know how old it was. He bought the property in 2017 or 18.
The tenant provided a copy of the notice that had been given terminating the tenancy. It was dated 8 October 2024 and gave the tenants until 11 December 2024 to vacate the premises because of extensive alterations, repairs, refurbishment or redevelopment that was to be undertaken within 3 months. The landlord is reminded that section 51(2)(f) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that 90 days’ notice is required in such circumstances.
The tenants vacated on Wednesday 30 October 2024. The landlord arranged someone from Wellington to paint the premises the following Monday.
The question arises why the tenant should pay to paint the premises when she was evicted because of planned refurbishment. The landlord said that he was planning on renovating the bathroom and replacing the carpet. He said he has not been able to do that because he has run out of money from the painting, which he said was undertaken within a few days of the tenant vacating the property.
The landlord’s claim for $3,800 for painting and pre-paint cleaning fails for the following reasons: a. The landlord has not provided photographs showing the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy. b. The landlord has not provided photographs showing damage at the end of the tenancy such that repainting was required. c. The email dated 6 January 2025 setting out the work includes repainting the bathroom, which the landlord said he was going to renovate in any event. d. The landlord has not established that the damage to the wallpaper was more than fair wear and tear, given the age of the wallpaper.
In short, the landlord has not established that the painting was required because of the careless or intentional actions of the tenants. I add that even if the landlord had established that the tenants’ carelessness caused the damage to the wallpaper, 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 tenant is not responsible for replacement of wallpaper that was clearly very old.
The tenants accepted that there were three holes in the walls that required repair. I have ordered $200 for that.
The landlord has not had the external repair to the stucco undertaken. He has not proved that the tenant is responsible for it. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord has not substantially succeeded with his claim and so there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5060454 — net $990.30 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Glass	$1,290.30	Repairs: Glass
Repairs: plastering	$200.00	Repairs: plastering
Rubbish removal	$230.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$990.30
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$990.30

Order

Rangi Tuhura must pay Andruth Pirani $990.30 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy which began on 19 May 2020 and ended on 23 October 2024.
During the tenancy there had been some disagreement about mould in the premises and who was responsible for it. The landlord’s mother and the tenant had encountered some conflict. It appears that both parties were ill-informed about their rights and responsibilities as tenant and landlord.
The landlord sought $5,375.50 for broken windows, holes in walls and cleaning and $400 for rubbish removal.
The tenant said that she had agreed to release of the bond on the basis that no claims would be made. A written agreement to that effect would have helped establish that assertion. Given there was some damage to the premises, it seems unlikely that such an agreement would have been made.

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 and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided photos showing debris left around the property and a skip bin. He provided invoices for the following: a. Skip bin: $210. b. Painting and cleaning $3,800. An email outlined the details of all work undertaken.
The tenant agreed that they had not removed all rubbish about the property and agreed to pay $210.00 for a skip and $20.00 for rubbish bags.
The landlord’s claim for cleaning included painting and was outlined in the painter’s detailed email. It reads: Description of completed interior works 9 Waldegrave St Palmerston North 1 , Bedroom 1 extensive cleaning especially on ceiling to remove stickers and other pollutants, dust , fly mess and grime etc also cleaning of cupboards and Architraves from dust and grime and felt pen , then sealing up walls, Architraves and plastering indentations and holes and then sand filler spot prime then 2 top coats on walls cupboards and Architraves 2 , Bedroom 2 Extension cleaning especially on ceiling to remove mould that was caused by lack of ventilation and cleaning also to walls, Architraves, window sashes , wardrobe and make free from dust grime and other foreign matter, there was also an attempt to fix a large hole next to light switch that required further work- taping , plastering, sanding and also plaster indentations and holes in various places all surfaces required a sealer undercoat followed by 2 top coats except ceiling. 3, Bedroom 3 Extensive cleaning especially on ceiling and make free from pollutants, fly mess, grime etc also further cleaning was required on window sashes, Architraves, plastering was required to indentations, holes and cracks followed by sanding and sealing all areas and 2 top coats except ceiling. 4, Hall (passageway) Exstensive cleaning to this area was required because of flies mess that was particularly bad, plastering was required especially on damaged corners and indentations and holes followed by sanding and a sealer undercoat and 2 top coats on all surfaces.
Lounge, kitchen, dining/laundry area, Extensive cleaning was required to all areas to remove grime , flies mess, and other pollutants, holes and pin holes and indentations which were particularly bad in lounge room required fillings and sanding, then sealer to all areas and spot priming was required to plaster followed by 2 top coats to all areas except ceilings 6, Bathroom, required Extensive cleaning to remove pollutants and then painting to all areas which required a sealer and a top coat.
The tenant provided photographs of the premises at the end of the tenancy which showed the premises to be reasonably clean and tidy. Apart from one dirty vent in the ceiling, the landlord provided no photos showing that cleaning was required.
The cleaning outlined by the painter is above and beyond what is required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. No order is made for compensation for cleaning.
The amount ordered for rubbish removal is proved.

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.
In addition to the invoice for painting outlined above, the landlord provided an invoice for replacement of windows that had been repaired by the tenant during the tenancy: $508.30 and a quote for $782 for replacement of broken windows.
The photographs showed windows that had not been repaired in a workman- like manner, the putty being clumsily applied and finished, as well as photos showing cracked windows. The tenant agreed to pay $1,290.30 for the repair of the windows.
As for the painting, the landlord must prove that this was required because of the intentional or careless actions of the tenant and more than fair wear and tear.
The photographs provided by the tenant and the landlord show that the wallpaper had come off in places in one room. The tenant said that this occurred when they were cleaning the mould off the walls. They thought that the mould was because the home did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards. The landlord thought the mould was because the tenants did not ventilate or clean adequately.
Because this tenancy began in 2020, the Healthy Homes Standards regarding ventilation, draught stopping and moisture ingress do not apply. In any event, the presence of mould does not amount to a breach of any of the standards.
It is plausible that when the tenant was cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy the wallpaper ripped. In the photographs it was evident that this is an older property and the wallpaper looked very tired. The landlord did not know how old it was. He bought the property in 2017 or 18.
The tenant provided a copy of the notice that had been given terminating the tenancy. It was dated 8 October 2024 and gave the tenants until 11 December 2024 to vacate the premises because of extensive alterations, repairs, refurbishment or redevelopment that was to be undertaken within 3 months. The landlord is reminded that section 51(2)(f) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that 90 days’ notice is required in such circumstances.
The tenants vacated on Wednesday 30 October 2024. The landlord arranged someone from Wellington to paint the premises the following Monday.
The question arises why the tenant should pay to paint the premises when she was evicted because of planned refurbishment. The landlord said that he was planning on renovating the bathroom and replacing the carpet. He said he has not been able to do that because he has run out of money from the painting, which he said was undertaken within a few days of the tenant vacating the property.
The landlord’s claim for $3,800 for painting and pre-paint cleaning fails for the following reasons: a. The landlord has not provided photographs showing the state of the premises at the start of the tenancy. b. The landlord has not provided photographs showing damage at the end of the tenancy such that repainting was required. c. The email dated 6 January 2025 setting out the work includes repainting the bathroom, which the landlord said he was going to renovate in any event. d. The landlord has not established that the damage to the wallpaper was more than fair wear and tear, given the age of the wallpaper.
In short, the landlord has not established that the painting was required because of the careless or intentional actions of the tenants. I add that even if the landlord had established that the tenants’ carelessness caused the damage to the wallpaper, 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 tenant is not responsible for replacement of wallpaper that was clearly very old.
The tenants accepted that there were three holes in the walls that required repair. I have ordered $200 for that.
The landlord has not had the external repair to the stucco undertaken. He has not proved that the tenant is responsible for it. That claim is dismissed.
The landlord has not substantially succeeded with his claim and so there is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5060454 — Property damage at 9 Waldegrave Street, Palmerston North, Palmerston North

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5060454 — Property damage at 9 Waldegrave Street, Palmerston North, Palmerston North

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