How much money was awarded in case 5175218?

Cleaning: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5175218?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5175218?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11718222-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5175218?

Cleaning: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5175218?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5175218?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11718222-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 289 Lyttelton Street, Spreydon, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5175218 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5175218?

The tribunal order states: Philip Morris Mendoza Sarmiento and Harren dae Rodriguez Sarmiento to pay

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5175218 — net $1,814.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: Insurance excess	$750.00	Carpet Cleaning: Insurance excess
Carpet Cleaning: Insurance excess	$750.00	Carpet Cleaning: Insurance excess
Carpet Cleaning: Painting invoice	$287.50	Carpet Cleaning: Painting invoice
Carpet Cleaning	$27.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$1,814.50
Bond	$1,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,814.50

Philip Morris Mendoza Sarmiento and Harren dae Rodriguez Sarmiento to pay A1 Property Managers Limited $1,814.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 (6455726-015) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited: $1,814.50 Philip Morris Mendoza Sarmiento and Harren dae Rodriguez Sarmiento: $145.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone conference. Mr Sarmiento represented the tenants.

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

The premises were brand new when the tenancy began, which was confirmed by a pre-tenancy inspection report.

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.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) A wall in a bedroom was damaged by hooks placed by the tenants and their repairs required finishing. b) The carpet was damaged by juice spills caused by the tenant’s child.

The property was initially managed by Ventured Property Management. In December 2022 they were taken over by A1 Property Managers Limited, who managed the property from that date.

The tenant said that he had asked advice from Venture Property about hanging items on the walls and was told to use hooks because they did not remove the paint when taken out. There was no written evidence confirming this, the tenant said that it was all verbal.

The marks on the wall were chest high under a window and there was no dispute that this damage was caused by the tenant. The tenant said that they had made an effort to fix and repaint the damage.

The photographs provided show a wall with some painted over hole marks still visible. I find that this is careless damage, and the tenant is liable for the cost to repair.

The carpet was new at the start of the tenancy, and it was not disputed that it had about fours stains in the lounge area, one at the bottom of the stairs and one upstairs at an entrance to a room. The tenant said that they were juice stains caused by his daughter, but they had not told the landlord about them.

The tenant said that the lounge stain was visible and was there at inspections. This was never raised by the property managers as a problem, otherwise they would have got a stain removal expert earlier. They had tried stain removers themselves.

At the end of the tenancy, the tenants had the carpet professionally cleaned and left a copy of the invoice for the landlord. The stains were still visible, and the landlords engaged their own carpet cleaners to see if they could be removed.

The landlord then sought insurance to cover the cost to replace the stains in this area. The insurance excess was confirmed as $750.00 per incident and was classed by the insurer as two separate incidents.

I find the damage to the carpet is careless damage. There was more than one incident over a period of time that caused the carpet damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts claimed by the landlord are awarded ordered.

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.

The landlord was wholly successful with their claim and the filing fee is reimbursed.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5175218 — net $1,814.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning: Insurance excess	$750.00	Carpet Cleaning: Insurance excess
Carpet Cleaning: Insurance excess	$750.00	Carpet Cleaning: Insurance excess
Carpet Cleaning: Painting invoice	$287.50	Carpet Cleaning: Painting invoice
Carpet Cleaning	$27.00	Carpet Cleaning
Net award	$1,814.50
Bond	$1,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,814.50

Philip Morris Mendoza Sarmiento and Harren dae Rodriguez Sarmiento to pay A1 Property Managers Limited $1,814.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone conference. Mr Sarmiento represented the tenants.

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

The premises were brand new when the tenancy began, which was confirmed by a pre-tenancy inspection report.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The property was initially managed by Ventured Property Management. In December 2022 they were taken over by A1 Property Managers Limited, who managed the property from that date.

The marks on the wall were chest high under a window and there was no dispute that this damage was caused by the tenant. The tenant said that they had made an effort to fix and repaint the damage.

The photographs provided show a wall with some painted over hole marks still visible. I find that this is careless damage, and the tenant is liable for the cost to repair.

The amounts claimed by the landlord are awarded ordered.

The landlord was wholly successful with their claim and the filing fee is reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5175218 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 289 Lyttelton Street, Spreydon, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5175218 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 289 Lyttelton Street, Spreydon, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions