What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5228096 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 5228096?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $124.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5228096?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5228096?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12135323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5228096 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 5228096?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $124.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5228096?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5228096?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12135323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5228096 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5228096 — net $151.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: repair 1 hole in door and TV wall mount removal hole	$124.00	Repairs: repair 1 hole in door and TV wall mount removal hole
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$151.00
Bond	$1,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$151.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $151.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $151.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,169.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] and [The tenant/s] all attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord said the tenant left grass clippings in a big area of the back garden and did not trim the edges of the garden at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided some photographs of the garden at the end of the tenancy, which showed some grass clippings in the back garden and some weeds and grass at the edge of the house. The landlord claimed $126.01 to tidy up the garden and remove and dispose of the garden waste and provided an invoice in this amount.
The landlord also claimed the tenant parked vehicles on the front garden, which meant the grass there died and had to be reseeded at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said further that there were some holes in the back garden, that could not be seen but were felt when you walked along the back garden, and which made the back garden uneven. The landlord believed this uneven back garden ground was caused by the tenant’s dog. The landlord said this ground had to be evened out at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice and claimed for the reseeding of the grass and evening out of the back garden in the amount of $448.64.
The landlord provided photographs of the property at the end of the tenancy of the front lawn but said there were no photographs of any holes in the back garden. The photographs of the front lawn showed some dry patches in the lawn but did not visibly show tyre marks from vehicles.
The tenant said that there were grass clippings in that part of the back garden from the time she moved into the property, and that the clippings were always there. She said she had arranged and paid for somebody to mow the lawns so thought she left the garden reasonably clean and tidy. She indicated further that the weeds and grass at the edge of the house had also always been there since she moved into the property.
The tenant said the dry grass on the front lawn was essentially fair wear and tear, as she had lived at the property for about 7 years.
The tenant had a witness, whom I will call Ms L, who was a former neighbour of hers, who was present when she moved into the house, and who had visited the house during the tenancy. The witness said she saw grass clippings in the back garden when the tenant moved in. The tenant’s witness said she did not notice anything different or unusual about the front lawn or the back garden, at the start or end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided some written comments in a report from the start of the tenancy, which noted the lawns and gardens in good condition. However, the landlord did not provide any photographs of the property at the start of the tenancy. Given this and the evidence from the tenant’s witness, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove their claims for $126.01 to tidy the garden and remove the green waste, and for $48.64 to reseed the front lawn and put more soil on the back garden. Therefore, I dismiss both these claims.

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 said the tenant caused multiple holes in the walls and in a door in the bedrooms during the tenancy.
The landlord provided photographs of holes in the walls and a hole in a door at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said there were about 3 holes in the walls of each bedroom plus a hole from removing a TV wall mount in one bedroom, plus a hole in one of the bedroom doors, for a total of around 10 or 11 holes.
The tenant said most of the holes were caused by previous tenants, as the holes were there when she moved into the property. The tenant admitted causing a hole in the bedroom door, which she said was caused from moving a bed out. She also acknowledged putting up the TV wall mount. The tenant said that, during the final inspection, the property manager only mentioned the hole in the door and TV wall mount to her and did not mention any of the other holes. The tenant indicated that she only took the property because she had to at the time, thought it was not in good condition and said the landlord would not fix anything.
The landlord did not provide any photographs of the walls or doors at the start of the tenancy to compare with the end of tenancy photographs to prove the damage was caused during the tenancy.
The tenant’s witness, Ms L, said that when the tenant moved in and she went to the property, she recalled seeing tape over parts of the walls but not much else. She described the property as “filthy” at the start of the tenancy and said it took ages for a group of them to clean the property after the tenant moved in.
Given the lack of any evidence about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, when the tenant said most of the holes were already there when she moved in, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to show the tenant caused most of the holes during the tenancy. However, as the tenant admitted to causing the hole in the bedroom door, carelessly and the TV wall mount, I find it reasonable that the tenant reimburse the landlord for the repair of this damage.
I find the hole in the bedroom door and the hole from the TV wall mount to be careless damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind the section 49B RTA cap.
The landlord provided an invoice for painting and plastering for $620.00 to plaster and paint around 10 or 11 holes. I find it reasonable to divide the total invoice of $620.00 by 10 holes, which comes to a repair cost of $62.00 per hole for plaster and paint. As the tenant admitted to causing two of the holes – one in the bedroom door and one for the TV wall mount, which had to be removed, I find it reasonable that the tenant pays $124.00 (2 holes x $62.00 each) for the repair of those two holes caused during the tenancy.
The damage as found is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $27.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,293.00 Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. As the landlord has been partly successful with the claim, I grant the landlord name suppression. See section 95A(1) RTA.
The tenant has been partly successful in raising a defence to some of the claims. I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name and so grant the tenant name suppression. See section 95A(4) RTA.
Therefore, I order that the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5228096 — net $151.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: repair 1 hole in door and TV wall mount removal hole	$124.00	Repairs: repair 1 hole in door and TV wall mount removal hole
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$151.00
Bond	$1,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$151.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $151.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $151.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,169.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] and [The tenant/s] all attended the teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord said the tenant left grass clippings in a big area of the back garden and did not trim the edges of the garden at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided some photographs of the garden at the end of the tenancy, which showed some grass clippings in the back garden and some weeds and grass at the edge of the house. The landlord claimed $126.01 to tidy up the garden and remove and dispose of the garden waste and provided an invoice in this amount.
The landlord also claimed the tenant parked vehicles on the front garden, which meant the grass there died and had to be reseeded at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said further that there were some holes in the back garden, that could not be seen but were felt when you walked along the back garden, and which made the back garden uneven. The landlord believed this uneven back garden ground was caused by the tenant’s dog. The landlord said this ground had to be evened out at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an invoice and claimed for the reseeding of the grass and evening out of the back garden in the amount of $448.64.
The landlord provided photographs of the property at the end of the tenancy of the front lawn but said there were no photographs of any holes in the back garden. The photographs of the front lawn showed some dry patches in the lawn but did not visibly show tyre marks from vehicles.
The tenant said that there were grass clippings in that part of the back garden from the time she moved into the property, and that the clippings were always there. She said she had arranged and paid for somebody to mow the lawns so thought she left the garden reasonably clean and tidy. She indicated further that the weeds and grass at the edge of the house had also always been there since she moved into the property.
The tenant said the dry grass on the front lawn was essentially fair wear and tear, as she had lived at the property for about 7 years.
The tenant had a witness, whom I will call Ms L, who was a former neighbour of hers, who was present when she moved into the house, and who had visited the house during the tenancy. The witness said she saw grass clippings in the back garden when the tenant moved in. The tenant’s witness said she did not notice anything different or unusual about the front lawn or the back garden, at the start or end of the tenancy.
The landlord provided some written comments in a report from the start of the tenancy, which noted the lawns and gardens in good condition. However, the landlord did not provide any photographs of the property at the start of the tenancy. Given this and the evidence from the tenant’s witness, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove their claims for $126.01 to tidy the garden and remove the green waste, and for $48.64 to reseed the front lawn and put more soil on the back garden. Therefore, I dismiss both these claims.

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 said the tenant caused multiple holes in the walls and in a door in the bedrooms during the tenancy.
The landlord provided photographs of holes in the walls and a hole in a door at the end of the tenancy. The landlord said there were about 3 holes in the walls of each bedroom plus a hole from removing a TV wall mount in one bedroom, plus a hole in one of the bedroom doors, for a total of around 10 or 11 holes.
The tenant said most of the holes were caused by previous tenants, as the holes were there when she moved into the property. The tenant admitted causing a hole in the bedroom door, which she said was caused from moving a bed out. She also acknowledged putting up the TV wall mount. The tenant said that, during the final inspection, the property manager only mentioned the hole in the door and TV wall mount to her and did not mention any of the other holes. The tenant indicated that she only took the property because she had to at the time, thought it was not in good condition and said the landlord would not fix anything.
The landlord did not provide any photographs of the walls or doors at the start of the tenancy to compare with the end of tenancy photographs to prove the damage was caused during the tenancy.
The tenant’s witness, Ms L, said that when the tenant moved in and she went to the property, she recalled seeing tape over parts of the walls but not much else. She described the property as “filthy” at the start of the tenancy and said it took ages for a group of them to clean the property after the tenant moved in.
Given the lack of any evidence about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, when the tenant said most of the holes were already there when she moved in, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to show the tenant caused most of the holes during the tenancy. However, as the tenant admitted to causing the hole in the bedroom door, carelessly and the TV wall mount, I find it reasonable that the tenant reimburse the landlord for the repair of this damage.
I find the hole in the bedroom door and the hole from the TV wall mount to be careless damage on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind the section 49B RTA cap.
The landlord provided an invoice for painting and plastering for $620.00 to plaster and paint around 10 or 11 holes. I find it reasonable to divide the total invoice of $620.00 by 10 holes, which comes to a repair cost of $62.00 per hole for plaster and paint. As the tenant admitted to causing two of the holes – one in the bedroom door and one for the TV wall mount, which had to be removed, I find it reasonable that the tenant pays $124.00 (2 holes x $62.00 each) for the repair of those two holes caused during the tenancy.
The damage as found is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $27.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,293.00 Suppression
Both parties requested name suppression. As the landlord has been partly successful with the claim, I grant the landlord name suppression. See section 95A(1) RTA.
The tenant has been partly successful in raising a defence to some of the claims. I find the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publishing her name and so grant the tenant name suppression. See section 95A(4) RTA.
Therefore, I order that the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5228096 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5228096 — Property damage

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

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

Frequently asked questions