What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313141 about?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders are made in this case.

How much money was awarded in case 5313141?

Cleaning: $759.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $339.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $836.69 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $826.28 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $176.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $585.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $794.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313141?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12363530-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313141 about?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders are made in this case.

How much money was awarded in case 5313141?

Cleaning: $759.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $339.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $836.69 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $826.28 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $176.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $585.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $794.75 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313141?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12363530-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

71 Karamu Crescent, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5313141 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313141 — net $3,399.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Measuring curtains, replacing lightbulbs lightshades, installing replacement door handles, fixing sleepout rail	$500.00	Repairs: Measuring curtains, replacing lightbulbs lightshades, installing replacement door handles, fixing sleepout rail
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$759.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: driveway	$250.00	Cleaning: driveway
Rubbish removal	$600.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$339.43	Lock/key replacement
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$836.69	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Window repairs	$826.28	Window repairs
Install oven replacement	$176.00	Install oven replacement
Replace furnishings: curtains	$794.75	Replace furnishings: curtains
Replace damaged porch clear lite	$250.00	Replace damaged porch clear lite
Plaster & paint damaged walls	$585.00	Plaster & paint damaged walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,399.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,399.15

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.

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 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, including the carpets, and did not remove all rubbish as shown in the photos produced in evidence. The driveway also required water blasting.

The cleaning, rubbish removal and section tidy work was carried out by the landlord’s in-house team with six invoices issued by the landlord company for the work. I have reduced the amounts sought by the landlord to what I consider a reasonable charge for the work involved and the skill required. In particular, I am concerned that the hourly rates charged for this work which range from $70 plus GST to $90 plus GST are excessive and unreasonable. In two of the cleaning invoices, the same person has been charged out at $70 plus GST/hour and in the other invoice at $90 plus GST/hour. Therefore, the charges are also inconsistent for the same work. Generally, I consider the hourly rates for this type of work should not exceed $30-$50 plus GST depending on what is required. I consider the amounts sought for a “health and safety fee” of $8.50 plus GST are not justified. It is not clear what this fee is for and why the tenant is being charged for it in each invoice. I also consider the charges for travel of $35 plus GST appearing on each of the six invoices are not justified and are excessive. Overall, I have awarded sums for each claim which I consider reasonable to cover the whole job and associated expenses.

The tenant did not return the keys and also required keys cut during the tenancy.

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.

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.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation for items that had to be replaced where necessary. 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Oven: The oven was left in poor condition at the end of the tenancy with elements in bad condition and control knobs burnt out. However, the landlord did not seek the cost of a replacement oven because they determined the oven needed replacing due to its age and depreciation. They seek only the costs of collecting and installing a new oven of $879.76. I consider the landlord is not entitled to the total installation costs for replacing an oven that must be fully depreciated anyway. However, I accept that but for the damage, the oven should have lasted longer and I award approximately 20% of the costs as a contribution towards the unintended early replacement of the oven.

Windows: Several windows were broken and required repair. The full cost is awarded.

Electrical work: Several power points and light fixtures were broken and required repair. The full cost is awarded.

The following repairs and maintenance to remedy damage caused by the tenant were carried out by the landlord’s in-house staff. For the reasons already explained above, I do not award the health & safety and travel charges on each invoice. I have also reduced the amounts claimed because I consider the hourly labour rates charged are excessive and unreasonable.

Curtains: The tenant acknowledged removing curtains from the property damaged by dirt and mould. The landlord seeks the replacement costs and labour to install new curtains of $2,762.71. Receipts produced for the curtains, hooks and tracks totalled $1,239.50 including GST not $1,684.85 plus GST as shown in the invoice. Labour for installing the curtains was charged at $90 plus GST/hour and totalled $776.25. I assess that $350 for labour is reasonable. This reduces the total invoice to $1,589.50.

The landlord did not know how old the curtains were but they have not been replaced in the 5 years that they have managed the property. They appear in reasonable condition in the pre-tenancy photos. On that basis I have depreciated the cost of installing replacement curtains by 50% to $794.75

Plastering and painting walls: There were several holes, scrapes and gouges in the walls that required plastering and painting throughout the house. The landlord seeks the costs of repairing and repainting the affected walls set out in 2 separate invoices of $1,224.26 and $912.70. The second invoice also covers work in the sleep out for which the landlord could not produce any photos to prove the damage. The landlord said that this accounted for approximately 20% of the cost which should be deducted from the invoice. Labour was charged at $90 plus GST/hour which is excessive. I assess that the first invoice should be reduced to $735 including materials and the second invoice should be reduced to $435 including materials, a total of $1,170.

The landlord did not know when the walls were last painted but they have not been refurbished in the 5 years that they have managed the property. The walls had some marks in the pre-tenancy photos. On that basis I have depreciated the costs of by 50% to $585.

Various repairs and maintenance: The landlord’s in-house staff measured the windows for replacement curtains taken by the tenant, and attended to minor repairs installing missing door handles, window latches, fixing the railing by the sleepout, changing lightbulbs, hanging up light shades and dismantling the damaged clear lite porch. The landlord seeks $777.26 for this work which included labour charged at $90 plus GST/hour which is again excessive and unreasonable. I award $500 for this work.

Installing clear lite porch: The porch was damaged and required replacement. The landlord seeks $646.24 for the work with labour charged at $90 plus GST/hour. I assess a reasonable cost for the work including materials is $500 The age of the clear lite porch is unknown and the longevity of clear lite can vary depending on quality. I apply depreciation of 50% and award $250 which I consider is a fair outcome. Final comments

This Tribunal has issued several previous decisions in which this landlord’s practice of charging excessive amounts for labour has been criticised and the amounts claimed have been reduced. Once again, I emphasize that the landlord is only entitled to charge a reasonable amount for the work involved and the Tribunal will only award a reasonable amount for the work.

The landlord has applied for, and is entitled to, suppression of its name and identifying details if it substantially succeeds with its claim, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. See s 95A RTA. In this case, I am declining the application for suppression because the landlord’s charging methods which I have once again criticised in this decision, is a matter of public interest for future tenants dealing with this landlord.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313141 — net $3,399.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Measuring curtains, replacing lightbulbs lightshades, installing replacement door handles, fixing sleepout rail	$500.00	Repairs: Measuring curtains, replacing lightbulbs lightshades, installing replacement door handles, fixing sleepout rail
Cleaning	$650.00	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$759.00	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: driveway	$250.00	Cleaning: driveway
Rubbish removal	$600.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$339.43	Lock/key replacement
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$836.69	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Window repairs	$826.28	Window repairs
Install oven replacement	$176.00	Install oven replacement
Replace furnishings: curtains	$794.75	Replace furnishings: curtains
Replace damaged porch clear lite	$250.00	Replace damaged porch clear lite
Plaster & paint damaged walls	$585.00	Plaster & paint damaged walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,399.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,399.15

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.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The tenant did not return the keys and also required keys cut during the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The following damage was caused during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Windows: Several windows were broken and required repair. The full cost is awarded.

Electrical work: Several power points and light fixtures were broken and required repair. The full cost is awarded.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313141 — Property damage at 71 Karamu Crescent, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313141 — Property damage at 71 Karamu Crescent, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.