What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5363121 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] party]

How much money was awarded in case 5363121?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $395.50 awarded to landlord; Exterior Joinery: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363121?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12732120-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5363121 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] party]

How much money was awarded in case 5363121?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $395.50 awarded to landlord; Exterior Joinery: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363121?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363121?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12732120-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Palladio Avenue, Leeston, Leeston 7632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5363121 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5363121 — net $2,215.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs paint and holes interior	$395.50	Repairs paint and holes interior
Cleaning exterior of house including garage	$200.00	Cleaning exterior of house including garage
Garden work and tidy	$120.00	Garden work and tidy
Repairs: exterior joinery	$1,500.00	Repairs: exterior joinery
Net award	$2,215.50
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,215.50

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay [The tenant/s] party] $2,215.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5870766-001) immediately apportioned as follows: [The tenant/s] party]: $2,215.50 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $184.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
This was a cross application.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided photographs in support of her oral evidence that the dishwasher, oven, hob, rubbish bins, blinds, floors, walls, and skirting boards had not been sufficiently cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant says that she cleaned the premises at the end of the tenancy but she accepts they were not perfect. In particular the tenant says the kitchen and bathroom clearly needed more work.
When I look at the photographs, I see premises that have been left reasonably tidy. Although the photographs show the premises have not been thoroughly cleaned, I am not persuaded that on the whole, they are not reasonably clean. At the end of a tendency a responsible landlord will usually conduct a deeper clean prior to the next tendency beginning, but this is not the standard required of a tenant vacating a premises.
I determine that to get the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard after the tenants vacated, a small amount of further interior cleaning was required. I make an award accordingly.
The landlord says that there were lots of small pieces of rubbish left throughout the garden at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also says there were also a pile of ashes and coals left between the fence and the shed, paw marks on exterior windows, the woodshed needed sweeping, parts of the irrigation system needed reinstating, there were wear marks in the lawn from where the dog had exercised, the bins needed cleaning and the trees needed pruning.
The tenant said that the garden was far from perfect at the start of the tenancy and that she had done her best to pick up the rubbish from the garden at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepted the dog had caused some damage to the garden.
The standard that a tenant must leave gardens and the exterior of premises at the end of a tenancy is the same as for the interior of premises; that is, reasonably clean and tidy. The Tribunal has found on many occasions that tenants are responsible for maintaining lawns, but the maintenance of trees and shrubbery falls to a landlord. An agreement between a landlord and a tenant regarding pruning of trees is not enforceable in the Tribunal.
Similarly to the interior cleaning off the premises, I determine two to three hours would have been sufficient to return the exterior to a reasonably tidy standard, and I make an award based on this.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 (and animals) at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B 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. Plaster and paint
The landlord claims the tenant caused a hole in the master bedroom, caused a crack in the hallway, and caused damage in the entranceway hallway which includes unsatisfactory repairs to damage that was extant prior to the tenancy beginning. The landlord produced photographs and an invoice in support of the claim.
The landlord says the walls were last painted approximately five years before this tendency began.
The tenant says, and the landlord accepts, there was some damage to the walls at the start of the tendency.
The tenant accepts repairs were needed, but disputes the size of some of the damage.
From looking at the invoice, I determine at approximately 1/3 of this claim is for plastering and filling, and 2/3 for repainting.
I determine the damage is proved by consent.
When I take into account depreciation and betterment, I determine only a portion of the painting costs should be awarded to the landlord.
This amount is proved. Damage two exterior windows
The landlord is claiming for scratch marks to the exterior of the dining room window, lounge window, the bedroom window, the lounge door, the garage door, and the laundry door, all of which she says were caused by the tenant’s dog.
The tenant accepts that her dog damaged the above windows and doors by scratching them. She points out there are no start of tenancy photographs to show whether or not there were already some scratches on the doors and windows prior to her moving in. The tenant points out that the doors and windows were already several years old at the start of the tendency and had faded.
The landlord accepts the windows and doors have faded, but is adamant there were no scratches of the like caused by the tenant’s dog prior to the tenant moving in.
The landlord provided photographs showing the scratches at the end of the tenancy.
I am satisfied the scratches I have seen in the photographs provided by the landlord, were caused by the tenant’s dog.
The landlord says she received two quotes for the repairs of the scratches the cheapest of which was for $2,587.50 and this is what she is claiming in compensation from the tenant.
The landlord accepts that the damage to the doors and windows is cosmetic and does not affect the function of the doors and windows.
Due to the extent of the damage, the many scratches on many doors and windows, I determine the damage exceeds carelessness and must be seen as intentional damage.
A limit must apply to what a tenant is liable for in the case of cosmetic damage, and the guiding principle must be reasonableness.
I determine that in the circumstances of this damage, it is reasonable to cap the tenant’s liability at $1,500.00. In my view this adequately compensates the landlord for the loss she has suffered.
The amounts ordered are proved.
In all the claims I must take into account betterment and depreciation. 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.
Because [The tenant/s] party] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5363121 — net $2,215.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs paint and holes interior	$395.50	Repairs paint and holes interior
Cleaning exterior of house including garage	$200.00	Cleaning exterior of house including garage
Garden work and tidy	$120.00	Garden work and tidy
Repairs: exterior joinery	$1,500.00	Repairs: exterior joinery
Net award	$2,215.50
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,215.50

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.

This was a cross application.

The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord provided photographs in support of her oral evidence that the dishwasher, oven, hob, rubbish bins, blinds, floors, walls, and skirting boards had not been sufficiently cleaned at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant says that she cleaned the premises at the end of the tenancy but she accepts they were not perfect. In particular the tenant says the kitchen and bathroom clearly needed more work.

When I look at the photographs, I see premises that have been left reasonably tidy. Although the photographs show the premises have not been thoroughly cleaned, I am not persuaded that on the whole, they are not reasonably clean. At the end of a tendency a responsible landlord will usually conduct a deeper clean prior to the next tendency beginning, but this is not the standard required of a tenant vacating a premises.

I determine that to get the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy standard after the tenants vacated, a small amount of further interior cleaning was required. I make an award accordingly.

The landlord says that there were lots of small pieces of rubbish left throughout the garden at the end of the tenancy. The landlord also says there were also a pile of ashes and coals left between the fence and the shed, paw marks on exterior windows, the woodshed needed sweeping, parts of the irrigation system needed reinstating, there were wear marks in the lawn from where the dog had exercised, the bins needed cleaning and the trees needed pruning.

The tenant said that the garden was far from perfect at the start of the tenancy and that she had done her best to pick up the rubbish from the garden at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepted the dog had caused some damage to the garden.

The standard that a tenant must leave gardens and the exterior of premises at the end of a tenancy is the same as for the interior of premises; that is, reasonably clean and tidy. The Tribunal has found on many occasions that tenants are responsible for maintaining lawns, but the maintenance of trees and shrubbery falls to a landlord. An agreement between a landlord and a tenant regarding pruning of trees is not enforceable in the Tribunal.

Similarly to the interior cleaning off the premises, I determine two to three hours would have been sufficient to return the exterior to a reasonably tidy standard, and I make an award based on this.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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 (and animals) at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B 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. Plaster and paint

The landlord claims the tenant caused a hole in the master bedroom, caused a crack in the hallway, and caused damage in the entranceway hallway which includes unsatisfactory repairs to damage that was extant prior to the tenancy beginning. The landlord produced photographs and an invoice in support of the claim.

The landlord says the walls were last painted approximately five years before this tendency began.

The tenant says, and the landlord accepts, there was some damage to the walls at the start of the tendency.

The tenant accepts repairs were needed, but disputes the size of some of the damage.

From looking at the invoice, I determine at approximately 1/3 of this claim is for plastering and filling, and 2/3 for repainting.

I determine the damage is proved by consent.

When I take into account depreciation and betterment, I determine only a portion of the painting costs should be awarded to the landlord.

This amount is proved. Damage two exterior windows

The landlord is claiming for scratch marks to the exterior of the dining room window, lounge window, the bedroom window, the lounge door, the garage door, and the laundry door, all of which she says were caused by the tenant’s dog.

The tenant accepts that her dog damaged the above windows and doors by scratching them. She points out there are no start of tenancy photographs to show whether or not there were already some scratches on the doors and windows prior to her moving in. The tenant points out that the doors and windows were already several years old at the start of the tendency and had faded.

The landlord accepts the windows and doors have faded, but is adamant there were no scratches of the like caused by the tenant’s dog prior to the tenant moving in.

The landlord provided photographs showing the scratches at the end of the tenancy.

I am satisfied the scratches I have seen in the photographs provided by the landlord, were caused by the tenant’s dog.

The landlord says she received two quotes for the repairs of the scratches the cheapest of which was for $2,587.50 and this is what she is claiming in compensation from the tenant.

The landlord accepts that the damage to the doors and windows is cosmetic and does not affect the function of the doors and windows.

Due to the extent of the damage, the many scratches on many doors and windows, I determine the damage exceeds carelessness and must be seen as intentional damage.

A limit must apply to what a tenant is liable for in the case of cosmetic damage, and the guiding principle must be reasonableness.

I determine that in the circumstances of this damage, it is reasonable to cap the tenant’s liability at $1,500.00. In my view this adequately compensates the landlord for the loss she has suffered.

The amounts ordered are proved.

In all the claims I must take into account betterment and depreciation. 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.

Because [The tenant/s] party] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363121 — Property damage at 7 Palladio Avenue, Leeston, Leeston 7632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363121 — Property damage at 7 Palladio Avenue, Leeston, Leeston 7632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363121 — Property damage at 7 Palladio Avenue, Leeston, Leeston 7632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363121 — Property damage at 7 Palladio Avenue, Leeston, Leeston 7632

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

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

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.