How much money was awarded in case 5337161?

Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $259.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $442.15 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Door Handle & Pinboard: $159.86 awarded to landlord; Painting: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat & Toilet Roll: $46.97 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $245.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Dehumidifier: $399.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337161?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337161?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12721916-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5337161?

Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $259.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $442.15 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Door Handle & Pinboard: $159.86 awarded to landlord; Painting: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat & Toilet Roll: $46.97 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $245.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Dehumidifier: $399.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $400.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337161?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337161?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12721916-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 Worthy Street, Ilam, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5337161 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5337161 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Vsc Holdings Limited T/[The tenant/s] landlord/s] $5,181.16 immediately, calculated as shown in

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5337161 — net $5,181.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$750.00	Cleaning
Cleaning: Waterblast Verandah	$259.50	Cleaning: Waterblast Verandah
Rubbish removal	$400.68	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$442.15	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Vinyl	$245.00	Repairs: Vinyl
Repairs: Toilet Seat & Toilet Roll	$46.97	Repairs: Toilet Seat & Toilet Roll
Repairs: Curtains	$450.00	Repairs: Curtains
Repairs: Door Handle & Pinboard	$159.86	Repairs: Door Handle & Pinboard
Repairs: Painting	$2,000.00	Repairs: Painting
Replace furnishings: Dehumidifier	$399.00	Replace furnishings: Dehumidifier
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,181.16
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,181.16

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Vsc Holdings Limited T/[The tenant/s] landlord/s] $5,181.16 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Cleaning$750.00 Cleaning: Waterblast Verandah$259.50 Rubbish removal$400.68 Lock/key replacement$442.15 Repairs: Vinyl$245.00 Repairs: Toilet Seat & Toilet Roll$46.97 Repairs: Curtains$450.00 Repairs: Door Handle & Pinboard$159.86 Repairs: Painting$2,000.00 Replace furnishings: Dehumidifier$399.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$5,181.16 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,181.16

The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.

The landlord has applied for compensation 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 tenant did not return the keys. A dehumidifier was missing at the end of the tenancy.

The landlord claimed interior cleaning costs of $1,000. One invoice ($880) is for a “vacate clean”, the other ($120) was for the cleaner to return and clean a ceiling. Given the lack of detail on the first invoice, I have considered the outgoing inspection photographs and weighed the $1,000 against similar claims in the Tribunal. I award $600 for interior cleaning.

The landlord also claimed exterior water blasting of $340.00 which included $80.50 for bin cleaning. Bins are inherently dirty, there was no evidence to establish any breach of the tenant’s obligations in relations to the bins. That part of the claim is dismissed. I award the amount claimed for removing paint from the concrete surfaces.

The landlord also claimed $957.95 for lock change and replacement keys. That included a public holiday callout charge and a further $100 for a range of keys. There was no objective reason why the landlord incurred a public holiday call out charge. It had keys, it could have locked the doors and could have replaced missing keys by cutting from its own set. I have allowed the cost of re-keying locks and obtaining a replacement set of keys. I have not allowed the public holiday callout charge or all sets of keys claimed.

The landlord provided evidence of the cost of a replacement second-hand dehumidifier. The landlord has purchased that item, and I award the amount claimed. The landlord also provided evidence of rubbish removal and dumping costs incurred. Those amounts are also awarded.

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.

The landlord claimed that a range of damage was caused during the tenancy. Some of the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for that damage.

I comment on each claim as follows: a. Vinyl – Puncture marks occurred during tenancy. Landlord provided evidence of damage and repair cost. Amount awarded, as claimed. b. Lounge Mat – No evidence that this has been or will be replaced. No evidence that it needs to be replaced or that cleaning has failed. Claim dismissed. c. Replacement Toilet Seat and Toilet Roll Holder, Damage to Door Handle and Door Pinboard. Landlord provided evidence of damage and repair cost. Amounts awarded, as claimed. d. Wall Repairs & Painting. The landlord claimed $6,997.95 for wall repairs and repainting. I have considered both the ingoing and exit photographs. This claim is inflated. Some of the damage claimed is the normal wear & tear which occurs from living in a home; it does not require full wall repaint at the tenant’s expense. I have also had regard to the ingoing condition of the paint work. I award $2,000 as a reasonable contribution by the tenant to damage caused during this tenancy. e. Curtains – Some curtains were damaged during the tenancy. Some were in poor condition at the start of the tenancy. I have awarded $450.00 for replacement curtains. f. Toilet Pan Replacement. The evidence did not establish damage caused during the tenancy. The evidence did not establish that the toilet pan had to be replaced. There was an invoice from a plumber, but no comment from the plumber as to why replacement was required. I also note that the invoice charges were weighted to the costs the landlord expected the tenant to pay (being the first hour of labour at a higher rate and travel costs). This claim is dismissed.

Other claims by the landlord, not specifically mentioned above, fall into the category of general maintenance that a landlord would be expected to incur between tenancies and do not arise from any established breach of the tenant obligations. They are dismissed.

As the landlord was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5337161 — net $5,181.16 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$750.00	Cleaning
Cleaning: Waterblast Verandah	$259.50	Cleaning: Waterblast Verandah
Rubbish removal	$400.68	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$442.15	Lock/key replacement
Repairs: Vinyl	$245.00	Repairs: Vinyl
Repairs: Toilet Seat & Toilet Roll	$46.97	Repairs: Toilet Seat & Toilet Roll
Repairs: Curtains	$450.00	Repairs: Curtains
Repairs: Door Handle & Pinboard	$159.86	Repairs: Door Handle & Pinboard
Repairs: Painting	$2,000.00	Repairs: Painting
Replace furnishings: Dehumidifier	$399.00	Replace furnishings: Dehumidifier
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,181.16
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,181.16

The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

A representative of the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.

The landlord has applied for compensation 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 leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The tenant did not return the keys. A dehumidifier was missing at the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed that a range of damage was caused during the tenancy. Some of the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for that damage.

As the landlord was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337161 — Property damage at 11 Worthy Street, Ilam, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337161 — Property damage at 11 Worthy Street, Ilam, Christchurch 8041

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.