How much money was awarded in case 5363781?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Benchtop Stain: $47.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,311.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363781?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12737751-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5363781?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Benchtop Stain: $47.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,311.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363781?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12737751-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 18 Inglis Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5363781 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5363781 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and Partners Limited T/A

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5363781 — net $66.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Walls & Paint Repairs	$2,311.50	Repairs: Walls & Paint Repairs
Repairs: Benchtop Stain	$47.00	Repairs: Benchtop Stain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$66.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$66.50

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and Partners Limited T/A Bayleys Property Management Canterbury $66.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Repairs: Walls & Paint Repairs$2,311.50 Repairs: Benchtop Stain$47.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$2,386.50 Bond$2,320.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$66.50

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6494704-012) to [The landlord/s] and Partners Limited T/A Bayleys Property Management Canterbury immediately.

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video link.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenants have applied for refund of the bond. The tenant application also included other compensation claims but the tenants advised that they were not pursuing those claims at the hearing.

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 claims that paint work was damaged by the tenants touching up dents and scrapes with a gloss paint, leaving high shine patches on surfaces throughout the house.

The tenants deny using the paint which was left in a laundry cupboard at the property. They said that the shiny patches might have been there the whole time, it is not something they would have noticed as they don’t consider it to be damage. Alternatively, they said the shiny patches might have been caused by sugar soap or janola used to clean the walls at the end of the tenancy. Or that the cleaning uncovered previous paint touch ups. They also said that the evidence of paint use in the garage (some paint residue on the carpet) could have been caused by them putting the tin on the carpet while they cleaned the cupboard.

I find the tenants’ explanations unlikely. The patches are not mentioned or evident in the in-going inspection report. As the landlord noted, the shiny patches are touch-ups, over top of small knocks. They have not been caused by cleaning. It is unlikely that paint residue would have been transferred to the carpet from a closed tin which has not been used for the duration of the tenancy.

I find that it is more likely than not that the touch up painting occurred during this tenancy and has caused damaged. Without the shiny touch ups, using the incorrect paint, the damage would have been fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is supported by a quote and invoice. It is modest, for the work done. I award the full amount claimed of $2,311.50.

There was also yellow stain on the bench top which could not be removed by normal cleaning. The landlord engaged a specialist to remove the stain, and I also award the amount claimed for that of $47.00.

As the landlord was completely successful, I award reimbursement of the tribunal application fee.

The bond is to be paid to the Landlord. The tenant application is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5363781 — net $66.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Walls & Paint Repairs	$2,311.50	Repairs: Walls & Paint Repairs
Repairs: Benchtop Stain	$47.00	Repairs: Benchtop Stain
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$66.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$66.50

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and Partners Limited T/A Bayleys Property Management Canterbury $66.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Repairs: Walls & Paint Repairs$2,311.50 Repairs: Benchtop Stain$47.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$2,386.50 Bond$2,320.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$66.50
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6494704-012) to [The landlord/s] and Partners Limited T/A Bayleys Property Management Canterbury immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video link.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenants have applied for refund of the bond. The tenant application also included other compensation claims but the tenants advised that they were not pursuing those claims at the hearing.

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 claims that paint work was damaged by the tenants touching up dents and scrapes with a gloss paint, leaving high shine patches on surfaces throughout the house.
The tenants deny using the paint which was left in a laundry cupboard at the property. They said that the shiny patches might have been there the whole time, it is not something they would have noticed as they don’t consider it to be damage. Alternatively, they said the shiny patches might have been caused by sugar soap or janola used to clean the walls at the end of the tenancy. Or that the cleaning uncovered previous paint touch ups. They also said that the evidence of paint use in the garage (some paint residue on the carpet) could have been caused by them putting the tin on the carpet while they cleaned the cupboard.
I find the tenants’ explanations unlikely. The patches are not mentioned or evident in the in-going inspection report. As the landlord noted, the shiny patches are touch-ups, over top of small knocks. They have not been caused by cleaning. It is unlikely that paint residue would have been transferred to the carpet from a closed tin which has not been used for the duration of the tenancy.
I find that it is more likely than not that the touch up painting occurred during this tenancy and has caused damaged. Without the shiny touch ups, using the incorrect paint, the damage would have been fair wear and tear. The amount claimed is supported by a quote and invoice. It is modest, for the work done. I award the full amount claimed of $2,311.50.
There was also yellow stain on the bench top which could not be removed by normal cleaning. The landlord engaged a specialist to remove the stain, and I also award the amount claimed for that of $47.00.
As the landlord was completely successful, I award reimbursement of the tribunal application fee.
The bond is to be paid to the Landlord. The tenant application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363781 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 18 Inglis Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363781 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 18 Inglis Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions