What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5143148 about?

The tribunal order states: There is an order for non-publication of the name of the tenant.

How much money was awarded in case 5143148?

Bins: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $384.10 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cupboards: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Shower: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Walls And Wood Bin: $832.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5143148?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12000067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5143148 about?

The tribunal order states: There is an order for non-publication of the name of the tenant.

How much money was awarded in case 5143148?

Bins: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $384.10 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cupboards: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Shower: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Walls And Wood Bin: $832.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5143148?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5143148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12000067-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

25 Lairdvale Road, Taumarunui, Taumarunui 3920 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5143148 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5143148 — net $1,193.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$60.00	Cleaning
Bins	$40.00	Bins
Carpet Cleaning	$384.10	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Kitchen cupboards	$450.00	Repairs: Kitchen cupboards
Repairs: walls and wood bin	$832.49	Repairs: walls and wood bin
Repairs: Shower	$1,200.00	Repairs: Shower
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,193.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,193.59

There is an order for non-publication of the name of the tenant.

[The tenant/s] must pay Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Victor & Helen Hogan $1,193.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Victor & Helen Hogan immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord represented by Ms Carter and Ms Bishop.

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

The onus is on the landlord to provide the evidence to establish the claims. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

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.

Based on the photographs provided, the premises seem reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord said that there was a smiley face on the back of one the doors, the kitchen door was not clean, and there were some areas above the mirror and on the doors of the bathroom. The landlord claimed $160 for cleaning.

The tenant says that she and her family cleaned the premises but maybe not to the standard of the landlord. She agreed that she had not cleaned a smiley face off one of the doors.

The tenant is not required to leave the premises immaculately clean, only reasonably clean and tidy. I have decided that the tenant is responsible for a further 2 hours cleaning, at $30 an hour, which comes to $60.00.

The landlord also submitted invoices for replacement of two council bins at $20.00 each.

The tenant said that they had been using the bins during the day and that she had left the bins behind. The landlord said that when the inspection was done the next day, they were not there. I find it unlikely that someone stole two council bins overnight. I find it more likely that they were inadvertently taken and/or disposed of in the course of moving out.

The landlord claimed $384.10 for carpet cleaning. The photographs show marks on the carpet.

The tenant queried why the entire carpet needed to be cleaned, rather than just the marks.

Looking at the photographs provided, I am satisfied that the carpets in the lounge and bedrooms had marks on them and required cleaning. Unless there is an isolated stain, then it is usual to clean the entire carpet. That is reasonable. The cost of $384.10 is a little more than sometimes seen in the Tribunal but it is not unreasonable. The tenant has not provided any evidence rebutting that the carpets needed cleaning or that the cost is unreasonable.

The amounts ordered are 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.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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.

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.

The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Woodbin, hole in garage wall, dents to walls in lounge and bedroom b. Kitchen cupboards c. Shower drainage unit.

There is a woodbin in the garage. The photos show damage, which appears to be caused by an axe and/or undue weight being placed on the lid, which was sagging at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant agreed that the damage was caused during the tenancy, as was the hole in the garage wall which they had attempted to mend.

The tenant agreed that there was a dent in the wall behind the fireplace, where they had stored wood.

The tenant was not aware of the dent in the bedroom. The landlord said it was behind the door, but she did not see how the door handle could have caused it, given there is a door stop. She had tried to push the door against the wall, but had not been able to because of the door stop.

I am satisfied that the items claimed are more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The tenant suggested that the wood on the woodbin was flimsy. However, it is not meant to be used as a wood block. The amount claimed for the garage wood bin was $233.90 plus GST to repair the holes, replace the hinges and put a sealer coat on the box. It is not unreasonable. Although the box showed signs of wear and tear at the start of the tenancy, it was no damaged, and would not have needed replacement or repair.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The kitchen doors had been damaged on the inside. The landlord said it seemed that they had been forced closed on something. The landlord had looked into repairing rather than replacing the doors, but was unable to.

The tenant accepted that the damage occurred during the tenancy but was unsure how it happened.

The amount claimed is $689.89. The landlord was unsure how old the kitchen is. It is clearly newer than the house itself, but not brand new at the start of the tenancy

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.

I have therefore allowed $450.00 for the replacement kitchen doors.

The landlord seeks $1200.00, being the insurance excess for a plumbing bill for the shower which came to $3,267.21. This was for damage to the shower drain.

The tenant was unaware of the damage.

The photographs show a shower with a white plastic floor and shower drain cover. The lip where the shower drain sits has been broken and at least three- quarters of the circumference is missing. The drain cover sits below the shower tray, instead of just above it.

The landlord said that it transpired that the drainage below had been damaged because of force applied to the drain.

The tenant said that they were unaware of any issues with the drain during the tenancy. They thought that the shower was flimsy. She said that her partner is big, and he may have stood on the drain cover.

The landlord said that the shower drains are built to withstand some weight on them.

Based on the photographs of the entry and exit inspections, I am satisfied that the drain was damaged during the tenancy and it is more than fair wear and tear. Fair wear and tear applies to items such as scuffs and minor tears, or loosening of handles in older properties, paint wearing thin, all from the usual use of the premises. I agree with the landlord that damage of this nature to a shower drain is very unusual. If the tenant claims that it is because of a defect in the shower, then the onus is on her to provide evidence to that effect.

According to the plumber’s invoice, the shower was 20 years old and the repair included replacement mixer and slider because it was thought they might fail.

The landlord was seeking only the insurance excess.

I am satisfied that but for the damage to the drain, the shower would not have required any repair. The excess of $1200 is reasonable.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Property Brokers Limited As Agent For Victor & Helen Hogan has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord advised that they would agree to name suppression for the tenant.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5143148 — net $1,193.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$60.00	Cleaning
Bins	$40.00	Bins
Carpet Cleaning	$384.10	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Kitchen cupboards	$450.00	Repairs: Kitchen cupboards
Repairs: walls and wood bin	$832.49	Repairs: walls and wood bin
Repairs: Shower	$1,200.00	Repairs: Shower
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,193.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,193.59