What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5222933?

The tribunal order states: Deirdre Maureen Kelly and Aidan James Grealish to pay Rempstone Property

How much money was awarded in case 5222933?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $882.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5222933?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5222933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12118076-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5222933?

The tribunal order states: Deirdre Maureen Kelly and Aidan James Grealish to pay Rempstone Property

How much money was awarded in case 5222933?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $882.40 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5222933?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5222933?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12118076-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Graycliffe Street, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5222933 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5222933 — net $1,209.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wall damage	$882.40	Wall damage
Lawns and Garden work	$300.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,209.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,209.40

Order

Deirdre Maureen Kelly and Aidan James Grealish to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Felix Jia & Heyuan Chen $1,209.40 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,209.40 (6065189-010) to Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Felix Jia & Heyuan Chen immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the Landlord withdrew their claim for carpet cleaning and repairing the databox.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: wall damage and lawn damage.
The Landlord claimed the Tenant caused wall damage to the property from picture hooks and nail marks which were concentrated in the living room and bedrooms. There were some in the hallway as well. They estimated over 29 holes were caused and some of the damage was from the Tenant’s attempts to repair however the paint colour was not identical. They provided ingoing and outgoing inspection reports along with an invoice from the Builder to substantiate the costs.
The tenants did not dispute causing the holes in the walls. At the end of the tenancy, after being notified of the wall damage by the Landlord, the tenants requested access to the property to perform these repairs, but the landlord did not disclose the key location immediately limiting the tenants’ available time.
The Tenants had inquired whether there was matching paint at the property to complete the repairs however the original vinyl paint finish had been discontinued since 2013 and was no longer available. They submitted this was normal wear and tear accumulated over the tenants’ four-year occupancy. The tenants patched the holes with matching paint as closely as possible, though the finish could not be exactly replicated. The landlord never requested professional repairs; therefore, the tenants committed to patching and repainting to the best of their ability. They also claimed some of the damage was present at the start of the tenancy before they moved in.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant is liable for the wall repairs because the damage is intentional and the Tenants do not dispute they caused the damage. The Landlord is not obliged to allow the Tenant time to repair further after the tenancy has ended either.
The Landlord claimed $300.00 for damage to a patch of grass on the lawn caused by a trampoline they had on the property for two years. The trampoline caused divots in the ground so the Landlord had a lawn service reseat three larger holes. The Landlord submitted the property should be returned in reasonable and acceptable condition and any required lawn maintenance should have been anticipated and completed before the tenancy ended. The Landlord referred to photographs in the ingoing, outgoing inspections regarding the lawn damage.
The Tenants disputed the charge as they had already paid for and addressed the smaller holes caused by the trampoline. They do not believe they should be responsible for watering the lawn, filling, or reseating beyond what they had already done. The Tenant submitted that they had rented several properties prior to this tenancy and had consistently been reliable tenants who maintained and cared for the properties responsibly.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant has caused the damage to the lawn which is beyond wear and tear. If the Tenants considered the price to repair excessive, they could have provided alternate quotes however there was no evidence provided. The photographs from the inspection reports clearly show the damage caused.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Felix Jia & Heyuan Chen have wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5222933 — net $1,209.40 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wall damage	$882.40	Wall damage
Lawns and Garden work	$300.00	Lawns and Garden work
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,209.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,209.40

Order

Deirdre Maureen Kelly and Aidan James Grealish to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Felix Jia & Heyuan Chen $1,209.40 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,209.40 (6065189-010) to Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Felix Jia & Heyuan Chen immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
At the hearing, the Landlord withdrew their claim for carpet cleaning and repairing the databox.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: wall damage and lawn damage.
The Landlord claimed the Tenant caused wall damage to the property from picture hooks and nail marks which were concentrated in the living room and bedrooms. There were some in the hallway as well. They estimated over 29 holes were caused and some of the damage was from the Tenant’s attempts to repair however the paint colour was not identical. They provided ingoing and outgoing inspection reports along with an invoice from the Builder to substantiate the costs.
The tenants did not dispute causing the holes in the walls. At the end of the tenancy, after being notified of the wall damage by the Landlord, the tenants requested access to the property to perform these repairs, but the landlord did not disclose the key location immediately limiting the tenants’ available time.
The Tenants had inquired whether there was matching paint at the property to complete the repairs however the original vinyl paint finish had been discontinued since 2013 and was no longer available. They submitted this was normal wear and tear accumulated over the tenants’ four-year occupancy. The tenants patched the holes with matching paint as closely as possible, though the finish could not be exactly replicated. The landlord never requested professional repairs; therefore, the tenants committed to patching and repainting to the best of their ability. They also claimed some of the damage was present at the start of the tenancy before they moved in.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant is liable for the wall repairs because the damage is intentional and the Tenants do not dispute they caused the damage. The Landlord is not obliged to allow the Tenant time to repair further after the tenancy has ended either.
The Landlord claimed $300.00 for damage to a patch of grass on the lawn caused by a trampoline they had on the property for two years. The trampoline caused divots in the ground so the Landlord had a lawn service reseat three larger holes. The Landlord submitted the property should be returned in reasonable and acceptable condition and any required lawn maintenance should have been anticipated and completed before the tenancy ended. The Landlord referred to photographs in the ingoing, outgoing inspections regarding the lawn damage.
The Tenants disputed the charge as they had already paid for and addressed the smaller holes caused by the trampoline. They do not believe they should be responsible for watering the lawn, filling, or reseating beyond what they had already done. The Tenant submitted that they had rented several properties prior to this tenancy and had consistently been reliable tenants who maintained and cared for the properties responsibly.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant has caused the damage to the lawn which is beyond wear and tear. If the Tenants considered the price to repair excessive, they could have provided alternate quotes however there was no evidence provided. The photographs from the inspection reports clearly show the damage caused.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agent For Felix Jia & Heyuan Chen have wholly succeeded with the claim the Tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5222933 — Property damage at 16 Graycliffe Street, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5222933 — Property damage at 16 Graycliffe Street, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

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