What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5176252 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5176252?

Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $172.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176252?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11735625-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5176252 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5176252?

Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $172.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176252?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176252?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11735625-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5176252 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5176252 — net $1,987.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal (by consent	$172.50	Rubbish removal (by consent
Carpet replacement in lounge (depreciated	$1,100.00	Carpet replacement in lounge (depreciated
Repairs to walls and painting (partially proven	$1,000.00	Repairs to walls and painting (partially proven
Net award	$1,987.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,987.54

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Landlord and Tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $284.96 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,987.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for refund of their bond and have filed a claim refuting an anticipated claim by the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Landlord’s claim for electricity and water
The landlord had originally made a claim for electricity and water but this was resolved prior to the hearing. The tenant agreed to the majority of the bond being released and so the sum of $284.54 is the remainder held at the bond centre.

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.
The landlord said that the tenant left behind rubbish. There were some minor items left behind in the house and various items left behind in the shed.
The tenants accepted that they had left rubbish behind. They said that one of the tenants broke her ankle and that the moving out process had been very difficult.
The landlord sought the sum of $172.50 including GST for rubbish removal and provided an invoice proving this amount. The tenants accepted the landlord’s claim for rubbish removal. The order is made by consent.

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. Carpet
The landlord said that the carpet was installed in early 2023, prior to the start of the tenancy in February 2023.
The landlord provided photos of the lounge carpet at the end of the tenancy. The photo shows a large stain covering a very significant portion of the lounge carpet.
The landlord said that the lounge carpet had to be replaced and produced an invoice in the amount of $1,250 plus GST ($1,437.50) for lounge carpet replacement.
The tenants accepted the carpet had been damaged. They explained that their young daughter had been playing with clay and paint and had accidentally caused the damage.
The tenant said that due to their circumstances they were unable to clean the carpet but wondered whether the landlord was reasonable to replace the carpet when it could have been cleaned.
Having reviewed the photos I accept that it was reasonable for the landlord to replace the lounge carpet. The photos show a very large stain that was likely to be difficult to remove.
In considering the amount to award for the replacement carpet I must consider betterment and depreciation. Carpet has an estimated life of eight years 1 . The carpet was approximately two years old at the time that it was replaced. It had expected life of a further six years. I have therefore ordered that the tenant compensate the landlord in the sum of $1,100 which is approximately 6/8ths of the total amount claimed. Walls
The landlord claimed for various painting and patching to the hallway, lounge, kitchen walls behind the fridge, bathroom, toilet door, all three bedrooms and the laundry.
The landlord claimed the sum of $2,484.00 (the invoice total with the carpet replacement and rubbish removal deducted).
The tenant fully accepted a hole in bedroom 2 (made by their daughter) and said that they accepted some of the other damage but said that much of the damage was wear and tear. The tenant said that the dents in the wall in two areas were caused because the door stoppers behind these doors became loose. They told the landlord who had the door stoppers re-fixed but they said that the dents had occurred meanwhile. The tenant also said that walls had been completely repainted but walls were all the same colour and could have been patch painted.
I spent some time at the hearing going through the vacated inspection photos with the landlord and the tenant. It was not clear in every case what damage had occurred and so not all of the damage was proven.
The photos show minor scrapes and small patches of missing paint. Some of the paint appears to have come away when blu-tack has been removed. Others are on corners. In the bathroom there is a small amount of missing paint which appears to have occurred because the bathroom sink was only tiled on one side. I accept that the dents behind two walls appears to be caused by door 1 See Inland Revenue Department depreciation schedules for Residential Chattels handles bumping into the wall behind. The marks behind the fridge are likely to be wear and tear.
Having carefully reviewed the photos and having heard from the parties I consider that approximately half of the damage claimed is wear and tear and/or that there has been some betterment as the entire walls have been painted, and the landlord now has freshly painted walls. It is not possible to be precise in my calculations as I can only base my assessment on the photos provided and the evidence given. However I consider the sum of $1,000 to be reasonable in all the circumstances, which is slightly less than half the amount claimed. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord has only been partially successful and so I have not refunded the filing fee. In making this decision I have also taken into account the fact that the tenants have also filed a claim and have incurred a filing fee.
It is unfortunate that the parties did not attend mediation as it seems likely that they may have been able to resolve matters and not required this hearing today. The tenants accepted the rubbish removal as claimed by the landlord and accepted that they damaged the carpet although did not accept the amount claimed. The tenants did not accept all of the damage claimed to the walls but not all of that damage has been proven.
In the circumstances I consider that both parties have been partially successful and it is appropriate to supress both parties’ names and identifying details. Payment
At the conclusion of the hearing the parties agreed that they would discuss payment of the amount ordered after the Easter and Anzac break.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5176252 — net $1,987.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal (by consent	$172.50	Rubbish removal (by consent
Carpet replacement in lounge (depreciated	$1,100.00	Carpet replacement in lounge (depreciated
Repairs to walls and painting (partially proven	$1,000.00	Repairs to walls and painting (partially proven
Net award	$1,987.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,987.54

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Landlord and Tenant’s names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $284.96 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,987.54 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for refund of their bond and have filed a claim refuting an anticipated claim by the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Landlord’s claim for electricity and water
The landlord had originally made a claim for electricity and water but this was resolved prior to the hearing. The tenant agreed to the majority of the bond being released and so the sum of $284.54 is the remainder held at the bond centre.

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.
The landlord said that the tenant left behind rubbish. There were some minor items left behind in the house and various items left behind in the shed.
The tenants accepted that they had left rubbish behind. They said that one of the tenants broke her ankle and that the moving out process had been very difficult.
The landlord sought the sum of $172.50 including GST for rubbish removal and provided an invoice proving this amount. The tenants accepted the landlord’s claim for rubbish removal. The order is made by consent.

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. Carpet
The landlord said that the carpet was installed in early 2023, prior to the start of the tenancy in February 2023.
The landlord provided photos of the lounge carpet at the end of the tenancy. The photo shows a large stain covering a very significant portion of the lounge carpet.
The landlord said that the lounge carpet had to be replaced and produced an invoice in the amount of $1,250 plus GST ($1,437.50) for lounge carpet replacement.
The tenants accepted the carpet had been damaged. They explained that their young daughter had been playing with clay and paint and had accidentally caused the damage.
The tenant said that due to their circumstances they were unable to clean the carpet but wondered whether the landlord was reasonable to replace the carpet when it could have been cleaned.
Having reviewed the photos I accept that it was reasonable for the landlord to replace the lounge carpet. The photos show a very large stain that was likely to be difficult to remove.
In considering the amount to award for the replacement carpet I must consider betterment and depreciation. Carpet has an estimated life of eight years 1 . The carpet was approximately two years old at the time that it was replaced. It had expected life of a further six years. I have therefore ordered that the tenant compensate the landlord in the sum of $1,100 which is approximately 6/8ths of the total amount claimed. Walls
The landlord claimed for various painting and patching to the hallway, lounge, kitchen walls behind the fridge, bathroom, toilet door, all three bedrooms and the laundry.
The landlord claimed the sum of $2,484.00 (the invoice total with the carpet replacement and rubbish removal deducted).
The tenant fully accepted a hole in bedroom 2 (made by their daughter) and said that they accepted some of the other damage but said that much of the damage was wear and tear. The tenant said that the dents in the wall in two areas were caused because the door stoppers behind these doors became loose. They told the landlord who had the door stoppers re-fixed but they said that the dents had occurred meanwhile. The tenant also said that walls had been completely repainted but walls were all the same colour and could have been patch painted.
I spent some time at the hearing going through the vacated inspection photos with the landlord and the tenant. It was not clear in every case what damage had occurred and so not all of the damage was proven.
The photos show minor scrapes and small patches of missing paint. Some of the paint appears to have come away when blu-tack has been removed. Others are on corners. In the bathroom there is a small amount of missing paint which appears to have occurred because the bathroom sink was only tiled on one side. I accept that the dents behind two walls appears to be caused by door 1 See Inland Revenue Department depreciation schedules for Residential Chattels handles bumping into the wall behind. The marks behind the fridge are likely to be wear and tear.
Having carefully reviewed the photos and having heard from the parties I consider that approximately half of the damage claimed is wear and tear and/or that there has been some betterment as the entire walls have been painted, and the landlord now has freshly painted walls. It is not possible to be precise in my calculations as I can only base my assessment on the photos provided and the evidence given. However I consider the sum of $1,000 to be reasonable in all the circumstances, which is slightly less than half the amount claimed. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord has only been partially successful and so I have not refunded the filing fee. In making this decision I have also taken into account the fact that the tenants have also filed a claim and have incurred a filing fee.
It is unfortunate that the parties did not attend mediation as it seems likely that they may have been able to resolve matters and not required this hearing today. The tenants accepted the rubbish removal as claimed by the landlord and accepted that they damaged the carpet although did not accept the amount claimed. The tenants did not accept all of the damage claimed to the walls but not all of that damage has been proven.
In the circumstances I consider that both parties have been partially successful and it is appropriate to supress both parties’ names and identifying details. Payment
At the conclusion of the hearing the parties agreed that they would discuss payment of the amount ordered after the Easter and Anzac break.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176252 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176252 — Property damage

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