How much money was awarded in case 5401849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401849?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13345415-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5401849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401849?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13345415-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5401849 — Mould & damp

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5401849 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details including the tenancy address. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $932.70 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $293.50 [The tenant/s]: $639.20

Reasons

The landlord’s representative and both tenants attended the hearing held by video conference.
The parties disagree about two landlord claims for compensation after this tenancy ended. The two issues in dispute are:- a. $599.20 to professionally clean curtains; and b. $333.50 for patch paint and plaster repairs for wall damage mostly from hanging items on the wall.

What is the relevant law?

The relevant law is:- a. Tenants must leave premises in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy” condition; section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA. b. If a landlord claims compensation for damage to premises, the landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear; s49B(8)(a) RTA. c. If the landlord proves this, 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(8)(b) RTA. d. A tenant must not attach any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition to the premises except with the prior written consent of the landlord, which cannot be unreasonably withheld; s42 and s42A RTA. e. It is unreasonable for a landlord to withhold consent to a “minor change” 1 (a tenant must still obtain written consent beforehand). The tenant must, on or before the end of the tenancy, return the premises to substantially the same condition they were in before (unless the landlord and tenant come to a different agreement) and to not do so is an unlawful act; s42B RTA. f. If any damage is caused when removing a fixture, the tenant must inform the landlord immediately. The landlord can then choose whether the tenant must repair the damage or pay the reasonable cost of doing so; see sections 42, 42A, 42B RTA. 1 A minor change is defined in section 42B(2) RTA and is essentially any fixture, renovation, alteration, or addition with a low risk of material damage and which allows the premises to be returned easily to substantially the same condition. Curtains
The landlord says four curtains and four net curtains in the lounge were not left reasonably clean. Photographs were supplied from an entry condition report (15/09/2023) and from an exit inspection at the end of the tenancy.
The exit photos show distinct mould patches along the bottom edge of several curtain linings. Two photos show light mould on two net curtains.
The entry photos also show mould on the lounge curtain linings and net curtains. The landlord says these photos were taken before the curtains were then professionally cleaned prior to this tenancy starting. The cleaning invoice dated 12 September 2023 was provided and I accept the landlord’s evidence.
The problem is that the landlord does not have photos taken after the curtains were cleaned. This means there are no photos to show the actual, cleaned, condition of the curtains at the start of this tenancy. I note that the entry inspection notes for the lounge say: Mould shows on the curtains.
The tenants say they should not have to pay to have the lounge curtains cleaned because the mould was pre-existing and because the nature of the lounge means continued mould growth on the curtains is wear and tear. That is, mould occurs from normal use of the premises and not from any action or omission of theirs.
My decision is that the tenants are not liable to compensate the landlord for cleaning the curtains. The absence of accurate entry photos, the evidence that mould grew on the same curtains during the previous tenancy, and the fact that the lounge has only one exterior door and no windows means I agree the mould is wear and tear caused by normal use of the premises.
Even if the tenants had been liable, I question whether it is reasonable to incur a cost of $599.20 to clean 4 curtains and 4 net curtains especially if this is likely to be required after every tenancy. The landlord could consider either not providing curtains (it is not a legal requirement) or installing easily washable, cost-effective alternatives.
This claim is dismissed. Wall repairs
The landlord says the tenants are liable to pay to plaster and patch paint minor damage to walls being:- a. Four screw holes caused after removal of a TV bracket; b. One patch of paint removed when trying to detach an adhesive ‘3M’ hook; c. One ‘3M’ hook left on the wall; d. One screw left in the wall; e. One picture hook left in the wall; f. One patch of paint removed in a wardrobe (this looks “torn” as if an adhesive surface has been removed.
The invoice supplied by the landlord is for $333.50 including gst and says simply “interior painting”. There is no indication of an hourly rate or details of the work done.
The tenants agree they attached the TV bracket, screw, 3M hooks and picture hook. These are minor changes which the landlord consented to; s42B RTA.
The landlord’s text giving consent said: No objections to wall hangings including the tv but the reinstatement would need to be completed by our painter. The previous tenant attempted to do something similar himself and created a complete disaster which I’d like to avoid seeing in the future.
The tenants say they should not be liable for the repainting invoice because the landlord said it would take care of reinstatement, that even if they were liable that the damage is not careless it is accidental, and that the invoice seems too high for the work so must cover other painting as well.
The tenants do not know how the patch of paint was removed in the wardrobe. The landlord proved this happened during the tenancy by providing a photo of the same area of wall from the entry inspection.
My decisions are:- a. The landlord’s condition that any required reinstatement be done by the landlord’s painter was reasonable because amateur attempts at plastering and painting can go wrong and end up causing worse damage. For example, tenants sometimes leave filler in lumps, or use the wrong product, and it is common to see mismatched paint patches which can mean the whole wall, or whole room, must be repainted. Ideally, the landlord’s text would have made it clear any reinstatement was at the tenants’ cost. b. The tenants were required to remove the fixtures (minor changes). The landlord is entitled to return the premises to a condition that is “substantially the same” as before the minor change was made; s42B(4) RTA. The tenancy agreement repeats this requirement and makes clear reinstatement is at the tenant’s cost (condition 8, page 4 and clause 5 and 6, page 5). The fact the landlord’s text did not explicitly say this does not remove the tenants’ liability. c. The landlord must be reasonable about the reinstatement required and the amount claimed. This is a well-established principle of compensation. 2 d. The patches of paint missing from removal of the 3M hook and in the wardrobe are careless damage and it is reasonable the landlord requires these to be lightly plastered, and patch painted. e. The screw holes from the TV bracket and screw are careless damage. Damage from attaching fixtures to walls cannot be accidental. The fixture is intentionally put in the wall therefore any resulting damage is the liability of the tenant. f. It is reasonable of the landlord to want the holes to be filled with a suitable filler to a flat, smooth finish (the landlord (owner) did this) and patch painted. Repainting the whole wall is not reasonable as the holes are relatively small and the walls were not perfect to begin with. There were already light marks, some scuff marks, some paint peeling, and some fading on walls and doors as noted in the entry inspection report. g. Reinstatement of the tiny holes left from removing a picture hook is not reasonable. h. The landlord gave oral evidence that the painter’s invoice was for patch repair of only the damage discussed in this decision. The tenants brought no evidence to the contrary (eg they did not email and ask the painter to describe the work done or arrange for him/her to give oral evidence).
On the evidence available, I reduce the claim by $40.00 to cover any repair from the picture hook and award $293.50 to the landlord for patch reinstatement of the other minor damage.
I do not award the filing fee.
The balance of the bond is refunded accordingly. Both landlord and tenant names are suppressed as both have been partly successful and there are no conduct concerns.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details including the tenancy address. 2.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $932.70 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $293.50 [The tenant/s]: $639.20

Reasons

The landlord’s representative and both tenants attended the hearing held by video conference.

The parties disagree about two landlord claims for compensation after this tenancy ended. The two issues in dispute are:- a. $599.20 to professionally clean curtains; and b. $333.50 for patch paint and plaster repairs for wall damage mostly from hanging items on the wall.

What is the relevant law?

The relevant law is:- a. Tenants must leave premises in a “reasonably clean and reasonably tidy” condition; section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA. b. If a landlord claims compensation for damage to premises, the landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear; s49B(8)(a) RTA. c. If the landlord proves this, 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(8)(b) RTA. d. A tenant must not attach any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition to the premises except with the prior written consent of the landlord, which cannot be unreasonably withheld; s42 and s42A RTA. e. It is unreasonable for a landlord to withhold consent to a “minor change” 1 (a tenant must still obtain written consent beforehand). The tenant must, on or before the end of the tenancy, return the premises to substantially the same condition they were in before (unless the landlord and tenant come to a different agreement) and to not do so is an unlawful act; s42B RTA. f. If any damage is caused when removing a fixture, the tenant must inform the landlord immediately. The landlord can then choose whether the tenant must repair the damage or pay the reasonable cost of doing so; see sections 42, 42A, 42B RTA. 1 A minor change is defined in section 42B(2) RTA and is essentially any fixture, renovation, alteration, or addition with a low risk of material damage and which allows the premises to be returned easily to substantially the same condition. Curtains

The landlord says four curtains and four net curtains in the lounge were not left reasonably clean. Photographs were supplied from an entry condition report (15/09/2023) and from an exit inspection at the end of the tenancy.

The exit photos show distinct mould patches along the bottom edge of several curtain linings. Two photos show light mould on two net curtains.

The entry photos also show mould on the lounge curtain linings and net curtains. The landlord says these photos were taken before the curtains were then professionally cleaned prior to this tenancy starting. The cleaning invoice dated 12 September 2023 was provided and I accept the landlord’s evidence.

The problem is that the landlord does not have photos taken after the curtains were cleaned. This means there are no photos to show the actual, cleaned, condition of the curtains at the start of this tenancy. I note that the entry inspection notes for the lounge say: Mould shows on the curtains.

The tenants say they should not have to pay to have the lounge curtains cleaned because the mould was pre-existing and because the nature of the lounge means continued mould growth on the curtains is wear and tear. That is, mould occurs from normal use of the premises and not from any action or omission of theirs.

My decision is that the tenants are not liable to compensate the landlord for cleaning the curtains. The absence of accurate entry photos, the evidence that mould grew on the same curtains during the previous tenancy, and the fact that the lounge has only one exterior door and no windows means I agree the mould is wear and tear caused by normal use of the premises.

Even if the tenants had been liable, I question whether it is reasonable to incur a cost of $599.20 to clean 4 curtains and 4 net curtains especially if this is likely to be required after every tenancy. The landlord could consider either not providing curtains (it is not a legal requirement) or installing easily washable, cost-effective alternatives.

This claim is dismissed. Wall repairs

The landlord says the tenants are liable to pay to plaster and patch paint minor damage to walls being:- a. Four screw holes caused after removal of a TV bracket; b. One patch of paint removed when trying to detach an adhesive ‘3M’ hook; c. One ‘3M’ hook left on the wall; d. One screw left in the wall; e. One picture hook left in the wall; f. One patch of paint removed in a wardrobe (this looks “torn” as if an adhesive surface has been removed.

The invoice supplied by the landlord is for $333.50 including gst and says simply “interior painting”. There is no indication of an hourly rate or details of the work done.

The tenants agree they attached the TV bracket, screw, 3M hooks and picture hook. These are minor changes which the landlord consented to; s42B RTA.

The landlord’s text giving consent said: No objections to wall hangings including the tv but the reinstatement would need to be completed by our painter. The previous tenant attempted to do something similar himself and created a complete disaster which I’d like to avoid seeing in the future.

The tenants say they should not be liable for the repainting invoice because the landlord said it would take care of reinstatement, that even if they were liable that the damage is not careless it is accidental, and that the invoice seems too high for the work so must cover other painting as well.

The tenants do not know how the patch of paint was removed in the wardrobe. The landlord proved this happened during the tenancy by providing a photo of the same area of wall from the entry inspection.

My decisions are:- a. The landlord’s condition that any required reinstatement be done by the landlord’s painter was reasonable because amateur attempts at plastering and painting can go wrong and end up causing worse damage. For example, tenants sometimes leave filler in lumps, or use the wrong product, and it is common to see mismatched paint patches which can mean the whole wall, or whole room, must be repainted. Ideally, the landlord’s text would have made it clear any reinstatement was at the tenants’ cost. b. The tenants were required to remove the fixtures (minor changes). The landlord is entitled to return the premises to a condition that is “substantially the same” as before the minor change was made; s42B(4) RTA. The tenancy agreement repeats this requirement and makes clear reinstatement is at the tenant’s cost (condition 8, page 4 and clause 5 and 6, page 5). The fact the landlord’s text did not explicitly say this does not remove the tenants’ liability. c. The landlord must be reasonable about the reinstatement required and the amount claimed. This is a well-established principle of compensation. 2 d. The patches of paint missing from removal of the 3M hook and in the wardrobe are careless damage and it is reasonable the landlord requires these to be lightly plastered, and patch painted. e. The screw holes from the TV bracket and screw are careless damage. Damage from attaching fixtures to walls cannot be accidental. The fixture is intentionally put in the wall therefore any resulting damage is the liability of the tenant. f. It is reasonable of the landlord to want the holes to be filled with a suitable filler to a flat, smooth finish (the landlord (owner) did this) and patch painted. Repainting the whole wall is not reasonable as the holes are relatively small and the walls were not perfect to begin with. There were already light marks, some scuff marks, some paint peeling, and some fading on walls and doors as noted in the entry inspection report. g. Reinstatement of the tiny holes left from removing a picture hook is not reasonable. h. The landlord gave oral evidence that the painter’s invoice was for patch repair of only the damage discussed in this decision. The tenants brought no evidence to the contrary (eg they did not email and ask the painter to describe the work done or arrange for him/her to give oral evidence).

On the evidence available, I reduce the claim by $40.00 to cover any repair from the picture hook and award $293.50 to the landlord for patch reinstatement of the other minor damage.

I do not award the filing fee.

The balance of the bond is refunded accordingly. Both landlord and tenant names are suppressed as both have been partly successful and there are no conduct concerns.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401849 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5401849 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What is the relevant law?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

What is the relevant law?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions