What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5082549?

The tribunal order states: Gautam Sennimalai Gounder Palaniswamy and Kavya Suresh Kumar must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5082549?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5082549?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5082549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11708023-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5082549?

The tribunal order states: Gautam Sennimalai Gounder Palaniswamy and Kavya Suresh Kumar must pay

How much money was awarded in case 5082549?

Cleaning: $75.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5082549?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5082549?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11708023-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

222 Gloucester Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5082549 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5082549 — net $475.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$75.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Wall repairs	$400.00	Wall repairs
Net award	$475.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$475.00

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference. The tenants were represented by Mr Palaniswamy.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants then filed an application seeking exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to release the bond.

A prior adjournment sought by the landlord was granted on condition that the landlord release the undisputed part of the bond. The whole of the bond has now been released to the tenants.

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

At the end of the tenancy a 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 landlord claims $200.00 for the cost of cleaning the oven. A comparison of the entry and exit inspection photographs of the oven shows that at the end of the tenancy the oven was not reasonably clean. The exit photos though only show that an aluminium liner needed to be replaced and an oven dish needed cleaning, they do not show that the oven itself was unclean, which is consistent with the tenants’ evidence that the oven was only very rarely used.

The compensation awarded is reduced accordingly.

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.

It is no dispute that during the tenancy dents were made in the wall above a window and four screw holes were left on another wall where a security camera had been mounted. Marks on the ensuite wall needed repainting.

The tenants accepted that they should repair that damage.

The issue is the cost. Mr Palaniswamy says he had obtained an estimate of $180-200.00 for the cost of that work to be done by an acquaintance who works as a painter, but was not given the opportunity to have that acquaintance do the work. The property manager says that the owner wanted the work done by a tradesperson. She says the quote from the landlord’s contractor was provided to the tenants who were given the opportunity to have a quote for an equivalent quality of work obtained. The tenants deny being given that opportunity.

Section 49 RTA requires that: “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”

That means the tenants should be given fair opportunity to reinstate the damage at their cost but the repairs need to properly reinstate the premises (see also s.42B RTA).

My assessment of the evidence is that: a. it is unlikely that the tenants could have had satisfactory reinstatement work, which required patching the walls and paint matching – perhaps requiring repainting the whole of the affected wall – for $180-$200.00; but that b. had they been given appropriate opportunity, the tenants may well have been able to have the work done satisfactorily for less than the amount quoted by the owner’s contractor.

The compensation awarded takes those factors into account

The landlord claims the cost of replacing two bathroom/toilet privacy locks that were removed during the tenancy.

The tenants’ evidence is that one of the occupants was locked in the bathroom when the lock would not work. Mr Palaniswamy tried to phone the property manager who was not immediately available (but was at an adjoining property). The Fire Service was called. They attended, removed the lock and also removed the privacy lock on another door, on the basis that it was likely to do the same thing.

The tenant showed the lock in question at the hearing. It appears to have failed through wear and tear. That being so, the tenant is not responsible for the cost of replacing it (see. s49A(2) RTA).

The other lock was removed by the Fire Service. Its loss was not caused by an intentional or careless act or omission of the tenants so the tenants are not liable for cost of replacing that second lock (see s.49A and 49B RTA).

There is no justification for the landlord having failed to release to the tenants the part of the their bond the landlord was not claiming.

However, failing to do so is not an act defined as unlawful by the RTA so it is not something for which an award of exemplary damages may be made. As noted, the whole of the bond has now been released to the tenants.

No Order is made in respect of the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5082549 — net $475.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Oven/stove cleaning	$75.00	Oven/stove cleaning
Wall repairs	$400.00	Wall repairs
Net award	$475.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$475.00

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference. The tenants were represented by Mr Palaniswamy.

The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants then filed an application seeking exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to release the bond.

A prior adjournment sought by the landlord was granted on condition that the landlord release the undisputed part of the bond. The whole of the bond has now been released to the tenants.

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

The compensation awarded is reduced accordingly.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenants accepted that they should repair that damage.

That means the tenants should be given fair opportunity to reinstate the damage at their cost but the repairs need to properly reinstate the premises (see also s.42B RTA).

The compensation awarded takes those factors into account

The landlord claims the cost of replacing two bathroom/toilet privacy locks that were removed during the tenancy.

The tenant showed the lock in question at the hearing. It appears to have failed through wear and tear. That being so, the tenant is not responsible for the cost of replacing it (see. s49A(2) RTA).

There is no justification for the landlord having failed to release to the tenants the part of the their bond the landlord was not claiming.

No Order is made in respect of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5082549 — Property damage at 222 Gloucester Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5082549 — Property damage at 222 Gloucester Street, Christchurch Central, Christchurch

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions