How much money was awarded in case 5156876?

Cleaning: $49.90 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $177.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $796.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $102.58 awarded to landlord; Replace Dining Chair Covers: $84.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5156876?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5156876?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11876448-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5156876?

Cleaning: $49.90 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $177.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $796.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $102.58 awarded to landlord; Replace Dining Chair Covers: $84.30 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5156876?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5156876?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11876448-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

406 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5156876 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5156876?

The tribunal order states: Mary Elizabeth Chesney is to pay Simpson Trustees 2008 Limited As Trustees

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5156876 — net $1,237.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Painting damaged internal walls	$796.00	Painting damaged internal walls
Replace dining chair covers	$84.30	Replace dining chair covers
Replace damaged oven tray	$102.58	Replace damaged oven tray
Garden tidy	$177.50	Garden tidy
Cleaning	$49.90	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,237.28
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,237.28

Mary Elizabeth Chesney is to pay Simpson Trustees 2008 Limited As Trustees Of The Simpson Family Trust $1,237.28 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (3584867-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Simpson Trustees 2008 Limited As Trustees Of The Simpson Family Trust: $1,237.28 Mary Elizabeth Chesney: $1,962.72

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Patrick representing the landlord and Ms Chesney representing the tenants.

The tenancy commenced on 25 January 2023 and ended on 6 January 2025. The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord has the burden to prove their claims. The standard of proof required is the usual civil standard of ‘on the balance of probabilities’. Put another way, the landlord must persuade me that what she says is more likely than not to be the case.

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, 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 (RTA).

The landlord prepared a report taking photos of the condition of the premises including the exterior grounds and gardens before the tenancy began (‘the entry report”). This report was sent to the tenants but was never signed by them. They also didn’t raise any issues or comment on the photos. After the tenancy ended, the landlord prepared an exit report with photos of the premises (“the exit report”). Cleaning

I am satisfied on the evidence that there was some mould and dirt on the glass door downstairs that required further cleaning after the tenancy ended. The amount claimed for cleaning is proved. Gardening

The landlord claims that areas of the garden were not tidied including weeding and removal of weed waste before the tenancy ended. Ms Chesney denied this claim stating that some garden areas were already in an untidy state at the start of the tenancy. She also maintained that some of the garden areas shown in the exit report were not shown in the entry report. Therefore, the condition at the start cannot be proved. The landlord seeks costs of $105 incurred to remove waste left by the tenants and a quoted cost of $250 for gardening work yet to be done.

I have carefully reviewed the evidence including all photos produced by the parties. I consider that some areas of the garden required tidying at the end of the tenancy, but some gardening work is not proved. Overall, I award the landlord 50% of the cost claimed being $177.50. Chattels

As part of the tenancy, the landlord provided a large number of furnishings as recorded on a chattels list prepared by the landlord. However, both parties acknowledged that once the tenants moved in there were several items that they did not want. These items were removed into a downstairs garage area and the landlord advised so that she could update the chattels list. This happened 2-3 times during the first 2 months of the tenancy. However, the tenants say that they did not receive an updated chattels list until the end of the tenancy, and they believe the list is inaccurate. The landlord confirms that she updated the list as she was told about specific items. The list provided in evidence has not been signed or initialled by the parties.

The landlord maintains that a green velvet chair, and a white lamp provided to the tenants were missing at the end of the tenancy. She says that she has searched the garage area and cannot find them. She believes the tenants have taken the items, perhaps accidentally when vacating. She wants them returned or compensation to replace them.

Ms Chesney denies that the tenants have the items and believe that they were moved into the garage and were to be removed from the chattels list. She also noted that next door tenants and contractors had access to the garage area where chattels were stored.

After careful consideration, I am not satisfied that the landlord is able to prove that the chattels list is accurate and that the alleged items remained at the premises during the tenancy. Therefore, the claim is dismissed.

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.

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.

Where damage is proved and the item is replaced, I must take 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 must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Internal walls

In addition to the entry report, the landlord provided evidence that the small bedroom, kitchen, lounge, and laundry were painted shortly before this tenancy started in January 2023.

The exit report photos showed scuff marks, drawings, dents, and scratches on two walls in bedroom 2, a laundry wall, a kitchen wall, and a lounge wall. The landlord obtained a quote of $1,322.50 to re-paint the walls and confirmed that they intended to use the contractor who provided the quote.

The tenant accepted liability for drawings and marks on the bedroom 2 walls caused during the tenancy.

The tenant disputed liability for the other walls saying that the paintwork was inferior and prone to marking because they were probably not sealed and primed. Ms Chesney conducted the “sellotape test” recommended by Resene in the small bedroom which caused paint to come off. She produced an extract from Resene that suggests if paint comes off doing the test, it indicates poor adhesion of the paint system.

Ms Chesney says that she and her family took good care of the house and were not careless or negligent. She denied that marks on the wall near appliances sitting on the bench were caused carelessly saying that she took care to ensure the appliances were not hard up against the wall and she cleaned the wall regularly. She believes the laundry wall was already scratched at the start of the tenancy. In relation to a dark mark behind the couch in the lounge, she notes that this was the landlord’s couch already placed there at the start of the tenancy, although the tenants later covered it. She also noted that the pre- tenancy photos are not close up enough to see the condition of the walls in detail. Therefore, she argues that the condition of the walls at the start is not clear.

After carefully considering the evidence, I accept that the walls in question were freshly painted before the tenancy started and were likely in very good condition. I am not persuaded that the paint coming off after the tenant conducted one “sellotape test” is conclusive evidence of inferior paintwork. The quote for the pre-tenancy paint work details what was done including sealing, priming, and applying two topcoats as appropriate depending on the area. In the kitchen a harder wearing paint was detailed. The contractor also noted on his quote that “I have included technical detail so that you know no corners will be cut. All fillers and other products used are premium products.”

I am satisfied that the wall damage in bedroom 2 and the laundry was caused carelessly by the tenants. In relation to the lounge, I accept that the landlord placed their couch against the wall before the tenancy started. While the tenant may’ve moved the couch to cover it, it was returned to its original position. It is possible that the marks were caused when the landlord placed the couch there after the wall was painted. There is no pre-tenancy close up photo to prove otherwise. Therefore, I consider that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenants. In relation to the kitchen wall, I accept Ms Chesney’s advice that the tenants took care to ensure that appliances on the bench were not hard up against the wall and she cleaned the wall regularly. A kitchen must be able to be used in the normal manner which will involve having appliances on the bench. It is to be expected that some wear and tear may occur if appliances are too near the walls. The kitchen wall mark is relatively minor, and I do not find it was caused carelessly or intentionally by the tenants.

The painting quote was not itemised for each room but covered 5 walls. Therefore I attribute 20% of the cost or $264.50 to each wall. Two walls required painting in the bedroom and one wall was painted in the laundry. Painted walls should last 12 years in a bedroom and 8 years in a laundry according to current depreciation guidelines. The paint work was 2 years old at the end of the tenancy. I award $440 for painting 2 walls in the small bedroom which is $529 reduced by 16.6% (2/12 years) for depreciation. I award $198 for painting the laundry wall which is $264.50 reduced by 25% (2/8 years) for depreciation. Other minor paint touch-ups

The landlord claims $356.30 to touch up small areas where paint was scuffed or peeled away from the wall as photographed and recorded in the exit report. The areas recorded as damaged are in the sunroom, lounge, small bedroom, master bedroom, kitchen, sitting room and hall. The landlord also claims $40 to paint over marks on the bathroom wall where the tenants had affixed a blind over the window. It appears that some of this damage occurred in rooms that were not freshly painted in January 2023. The painting quote shows that only the small bedroom, lounge (which may’ve included the sunroom), kitchen and laundry were painted. It does not cover the sitting room, hall, master bedroom and bathroom. The age of the paint work in these rooms is unknown and the entry inspection report does not contain close up photos to clearly show the condition of all those walls.

After carefully considering all the evidence, I make an allowance for some touch ups in the newly painted areas and the bathroom which I am satisfied was likely caused by the tenants carelessly given the number of marks. I award 50% of the costs claimed of $396.30 but reduce this further for depreciation by 20% on the basis that the newly painted walls were 2 years old at the end of the tenancy and should have lasted between 8-12 years. Therefore, I award $158. External weatherboards

The landlord claims $173.15 to repair and paint damaged exterior weatherboards. She believes the damage was caused by the tenants’ bikes leaning against the wall. She produced a photo taken by the tenants of the bikes up against the wall when they first purchased them. The wall looks to be free of damage and marks. The landlord claims the end of tenancy photos taken of the same area show black marks on the boards at handlebar height and damage at the lower corner from pedals. The landlord provided evidence that the exterior weatherboards were freshly painted in April 2022.

The tenant denies causing any damage, stating that they believe what is shown in the exit photos is just dirt and grime or pre-existing damage. Ms Chesney notes that the bikes had cushioned handles and the pedals did not touch the weatherboards as they used kickstands. She also noted that there were frequent contractors who worked outside with tools and large boards during the tenancy that might have scraped the lower corner by accident.

After carefully reviewing the evidence, I am not satisfied that weatherboard damage has been caused by the tenants carelessly. There is the possibility that other contractors accessing the property may have scraped the bottom boards. It appears that the tenants took reasonable care with cushioned handlebars and by using kickstands so that the bikes and peddles were not resting against the weatherboards. I consider that any damage caused by the tenants was likely accidental. The claim is dismissed. Dining room chairs

There is no dispute that Ms Chesney recovered four antique dining room chairs in denim fabric without the landlord’s consent. She says that she did this because the existing upholstery was very old and worn. The landlord seeks the costs to reinstate the chairs to their original appearance. The landlord has obtained a quote for the fabric and labour totalling $562.

The landlord could not confirm the age of the chair upholstery. She explained that she bought the house from her elderly Aunt including the furniture. She referred to the chairs as antique and notes that they were covered in a traditional red and cream striped fabric.

The tenant is liable for the costs of reinstating the chairs. However, I must consider depreciation. I consider the upholstery was likely very old and worn and should be fully depreciated. However, it is reasonable to award some compensation to the landlord for the unintended replacement costs. I award $84.30 being 15% of the quoted costs, which I consider is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Other furnishings

The landlord seeks the replacement costs of several items of antique furniture that she claims were damaged carelessly by the tenants during the tenancy. The items were: marble coffee table; dining room table; nest of three tables with leather and gold insets; dining room table; leaf table; stationery cabinet; lounge suite sofa and two chairs. The landlord provided photos of the items in the exit report that show damage. The landlord believes that the tenant’s dog caused fraying and pulling of the lounge suite; and that other items were damaged by the tenants placing hot items or items such as pot plants on the furnishings without protection underneath such as placemats and trivets etc.

Ms Chesney disputes these claims. First, she points out that there are no pre- tenancy photos which adequately show the condition of these chattels close up. However, she did extract a photo of the lounge suite sofa and chairs from the entry inspection report and printed out a magnified version which shows that the fabric is fraying and worn. Furthermore, Ms Chesney presented photo evidence that the tenants were careful during the tenancy to protect the furniture. They covered the dining table in two cloths and used trivets and placemats. They put their own covers (double covers) over the lounge suite because they were concerned that it was worn and frayed at the start and did not want it to deteriorate further. Ms Chesney notes that the agent who inspected the premises for the landlord during the tenancy never raised any issue about the condition of the furniture and saw that items were covered by the tenants during the tenancy. Ms Chesney also gave evidence that overall the furniture was old and worn.

After carefully reviewing all the available evidence, I find that the landlord has not proved that the furnishings have been damaged beyond fair wear and tear by the tenants either carelessly or intentionally. Furthermore, I find that the tenants took reasonable precautions to protect the furnishings. Even if the damage occurred during the tenancy despite those precautions, I would find that it was accidental damage for which the tenants are not liable. For those reasons, the claims are dismissed. Oven tray

The tenants accept liability for replacement of the oven tray. Cook top

On 18 August 2024, the tenants reported to the landlord that the glass cook top had cracked while they were using it. They explained that it started cracking spontaneously. They had not dropped anything on top of it. The landlord approached the retailer and manufacturer for advice as to the cause. The manufacturer provided a document showing different types of damage and causes. The document states: “If your hob has a number of cracks radiating out from a single point, this is probably due to an impact caused by a damaged or overly heavy pan. It could also be caused by a jar falling on it, as glass-on-glass impacts never have a good outcome. Did the glass break without it being the direct and immediate result of an impact? The heat resistant glass on your hob is very strong. However, if it is subjected to an impact, it retains a memory of the incident in its structure and can produce a delayed reaction, even as much as several days later. After you’ve cooked on it a few more times the glass will break due to the strains exerted on it by the heat...”

The landlord asserts that the tenant has dropped a heavy object on the cooktop carelessly and is liable for the replacement cost of $901 (which is under the landlord’s insurance excess of $1,000).

Ms Chesney is adamant that neither she nor the other occupants dropped anything on the hob. She also gave evidence that a contractor attended the premises prior to this incident to assess and measure a gap between the rangehood vent and the ceiling. The contractor then returned on 18 August 2024 (after the tenant reported the cracking) to install a connection between the vent and the ceiling. The rangehood is above the cooktop. The tenants suggest that the contractor may have dropped something on the hob when assessing the vent which later resulted in a crack. This is possible given the manufacturers advice that a hard impact on the cooktop may result in a delayed reaction even several days later as highlighted above.

Based on the available evidence, I find that the landlord has not proved that the cooktop was damaged by the tenants acting carelessly or intentionally. Therefore the claim is dismissed.

As the landlord has succeeded with several claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5156876 — net $1,237.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Painting damaged internal walls	$796.00	Painting damaged internal walls
Replace dining chair covers	$84.30	Replace dining chair covers
Replace damaged oven tray	$102.58	Replace damaged oven tray
Garden tidy	$177.50	Garden tidy
Cleaning	$49.90	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,237.28
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,237.28

Mary Elizabeth Chesney is to pay Simpson Trustees 2008 Limited As Trustees Of The Simpson Family Trust $1,237.28 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing with Ms Patrick representing the landlord and Ms Chesney representing the tenants.

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

In addition to the entry report, the landlord provided evidence that the small bedroom, kitchen, lounge, and laundry were painted shortly before this tenancy started in January 2023.

The tenant accepted liability for drawings and marks on the bedroom 2 walls caused during the tenancy.

The tenants accept liability for replacement of the oven tray. Cook top

The landlord asserts that the tenant has dropped a heavy object on the cooktop carelessly and is liable for the replacement cost of $901 (which is under the landlord’s insurance excess of $1,000).

Based on the available evidence, I find that the landlord has not proved that the cooktop was damaged by the tenants acting carelessly or intentionally. Therefore the claim is dismissed.

As the landlord has succeeded with several claims, they are entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5156876 — Property damage at 406 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5156876 — Property damage at 406 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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