What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5255320?

The tribunal order states: Glenn Morris, Ryan Morris, Declan Morris and Thomas William Reid Jnr must

How much money was awarded in case 5255320?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $185.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $47.02 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Fittings: $381.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5255320?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5255320?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12156593-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5255320?

The tribunal order states: Glenn Morris, Ryan Morris, Declan Morris and Thomas William Reid Jnr must

How much money was awarded in case 5255320?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $185.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $47.02 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $30.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Fittings: $381.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord; Dishwasher: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5255320?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5255320?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12156593-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

31 Deepdale Street, Burnside, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5255320 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5255320 — net $123.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$30.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning: Blinds	$185.00	Cleaning: Blinds
Repairs: Carpet	$1,250.00	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Painting	$550.00	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Bathroom Fittings	$381.00	Repairs: Bathroom Fittings
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Heat Pump Remotes	$47.02	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Heat Pump Remotes
Repairs: Dishwasher	$100.00	Repairs: Dishwasher
Net award	$123.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$123.02

Glenn Morris, Ryan Morris, Declan Morris and Thomas William Reid Jnr must pay Ready Property Managers $123.02 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$300.00 Lawns and Garden work$30.00 Cleaning: Blinds$185.00 Repairs: Carpet$1,250.00 Repairs: Painting$550.00 Repairs: Bathroom Fittings$381.00 Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Heat Pump Remotes $47.02 Repairs: Dishwasher$100.00 Total award$2,843.02 Bond$2,720.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$123.02

Claims for a net curtain, blind replacement and ant repellent were withdrawn at the hearing.

The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

The bond centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 to VSC Holdings Ltd, immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Leonard and Ms Acker attended in person for the landlord and Ms Chapman by telephone. Glenn Morris and Mr Reid attended for the tenants.

The tenants have applied for refund of the bond.

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 tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenants did not leave the heat pump remote controls in a usable condition. The landlord provided photographs and invoices to support its claims.

The tenants had not removed all weeds at the end of the tenancy. They claim that they sprayed the weeds, but the weeds were not dead at the end of the tenancy and would have had to be removed in any event. I award the amount claimed of $30 for weed control/removal.

The landlord claimed $570 for cleaning. The standard is “reasonably clean”, it is not pristine, commercially clean, or even to the standard the landlord may wish to provide the property to a new tenant. The photographs show that some cleaning was required, but not to the extent claimed by the landlord. The tenants disputed the oven cleaning claim and said that they hardly used it because it was defective. Whether they used it daily or only a handful of times, the evidence shows it was clean on entry and filthy when they left. Having regard to the photographs and the work likely to have been required, I award $300 for cleaning.

The landlord also claimed $221.95 for blind cleaning. The blinds were dirty, showing an accumulation of grime during the tenancy. The invoice included other items but attributed a full call out fee to the tenants. Have apportioned the call out fee, and award $185.00 to the landlord.

The landlord also claimed a heat pump service fee. I find that this is a regular maintenance requirement and is the landlord’s obligation. That claim is dismissed.

The landlord also claimed $7.99 for mould spray for the bathroom. The photograph showed limited mould on an old, single glazed, timber framed window. I am not persuaded that the existence of a modest amount of mould, was the result of any breach of the tenant’s obligations. That 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 the landlord has insurance cover, 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.

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.

The landlord claims that following damage was caused during the tenancy: carpet requires replacement, wall and paint damage, toilet seat and towel rail removed, cutlery tray damaged, net curtain torn, and front of dishwasher dented.

The landlord claims that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I comment on each of the issues raised below: a. Carpet – The carpet was stained beyond reasonable wear & tear. Some stains could not be removed and there are two small burn marks that I could discern. The damage is careless. The landlord claimed full replacement of $6,232.45 from the tenant but has elected not claim under its insurance policy. If there is cover, and applying an excess to each area, the tenant’s liability would be $2,200 or $2,750 (depending on whether open areas are treated as one or two claims). Alternatively, the tenant’s maximum liability is four weeks rent for carpet damage; a total of $2,720.00. So, at its highest, the tenant’s liability for carpet damage is limited to $2,750.00. The carpet has not been replaced and I am not persuaded that it will be in the short term, or that it needs to be replaced. The property has been tenanted with the carpet in its current condition. However, I accept that the landlord should be compensated for the aesthetic impact of the stains, and award $1,250.00. b. Wall & Paint Damage – The landlord claimed $3,375.25 for painting. The landlord provided a quote which included full topcoats for complete walls. There has been some wear and tear to the paint during the tenancy. However, the ingoing condition of the walls was poor, paint work was patchy (at best). Having regard to the ingoing and outgoing photographs, I award an amount of $550 for wall repairs, consistent with one insurance excess. c. Bathroom Fixtures - The evidence shows that a toilet seat and towel rail were removed during the tenancy. The landlord also provided a receipt for repair. The tenants said that these had not been properly installed or were already damaged but provided no evidence of raising the issues with the landlord. These claims are proved. I award the amounts claimed. d. Cutlery Insert – The landlord claimed $15.79 for a replacement cutlery insert. The one provided to the tenants was cracked at the end of the tenancy. It appears to be thin, brittle plastic, more disposable than a long- lasting fitting. I am not satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, having regard to the quality of the item. This claim is dismissed. e. Net Curtain – The landlord claimed $40 for a replacement net curtain. The curtain was torn at the start of the tenancy, and the damage continued through normal use during the tenancy. The landlord has not established that the tenant is liable for a replacement. The claim is dismissed. f. Dishwasher – The dishwasher was new at the start of the tenancy. It has a dent or bow in the front panel at the end of the tenancy. That is more than fair wear & tear. The landlord claimed $100 for diminution in aesthetic value. That is reasonable, and I award the amount claimed.

The landlord also claimed 2 weeks and 2 days loss of rent because it claims it could not rent the premises in the condition they were left by the tenants. This is not proved. The landlord did not replace the carpet, the painting was completed after the current tenants moved in. The balance of the work required is consistent with what a landlord could reasonably expect between tenancies. This claim is dismissed.

The bond will be paid to the landlord.

Each party was partially successful, so I have not awarded either filing fee.

I did not grant the tenant’s request for suppression of its details. I do not consider that either party was substantially successful. While the amount awarded was a lot less than the landlord claimed, the landlord did prove most aspects of its claim to some degree.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5255320 — net $123.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$30.00	Lawns and Garden work
Cleaning: Blinds	$185.00	Cleaning: Blinds
Repairs: Carpet	$1,250.00	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Painting	$550.00	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Bathroom Fittings	$381.00	Repairs: Bathroom Fittings
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Heat Pump Remotes	$47.02	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Heat Pump Remotes
Repairs: Dishwasher	$100.00	Repairs: Dishwasher
Net award	$123.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$123.02

Claims for a net curtain, blind replacement and ant repellent were withdrawn at the hearing.

The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

The bond centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 to VSC Holdings Ltd, immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Leonard and Ms Acker attended in person for the landlord and Ms Chapman by telephone. Glenn Morris and Mr Reid attended for the tenants.

The tenants have applied for refund of the bond.

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?

The landlord also claimed a heat pump service fee. I find that this is a regular maintenance requirement and is the landlord’s obligation. That claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The bond will be paid to the landlord.

Each party was partially successful, so I have not awarded either filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5255320 — Property damage at 31 Deepdale Street, Burnside, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5255320 — Property damage at 31 Deepdale Street, Burnside, Christchurch 8053

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