What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416649 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5416649?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $335.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $431.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416649?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13676099-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5416649 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5416649?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $335.80 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $431.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416649?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13676099-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

69 Lydiard Drive, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5416649 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5416649 — net $795.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$335.80	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Wall damage	$431.25	Repairs: Wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$795.05
Bond	$1,980.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$795.05

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay A1 Property Managers Limited $795.05 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited: $795.05 [The tenant/s]: $1,184.95

The claim for curtain cleaning is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The claim for curtain cleaning was withdrawn. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. The Law – tenant’s obligations at the end of the tenancy
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1 The Law - Tenants responsibility for damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 2 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 3
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 4 1 RTA, 40(1)(e). 2 RTA, s 40 (2)(a). 3 RTA s 40(2)(a), 41, 49B.
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). 5 Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 6 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 7
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional, is pet damage 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. 8 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. 9
In assessing a claim for compensation, 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

THE CLAIMS

WALL REPAIRS

The landlord claims compensation for wall repairs for damage to the entranceway corner, a chip under the living room light switch and holes in the garage wall. The landlord says the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant accepted liability for the damage to the holes in the garage. The tenant disputed the remainder of the claim. The tenant did not explain how the remaining damage was caused but says it is fair wear and tear, given the length of the tenancy, being more than 6 years.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs in support of the claim. An invoice was provide in support of the claim. The property was a new build at the start of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy there were numerous small dents and marks on the walls. The landlord has not claimed compensation for these, which reflects that there has been fair wear and tear 4 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 5 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 6 RTA, s 49B(3)(b). 7 RTA s 49B(3A)(a). 8 RTA s 49B(1). 9 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. over this tenancy. However, the claim for compensation reflects the small amount of damage that went beyond fair wear and tear and I consider was likely caused carelessly by the tenant or someone in the premises with the tenant’s permission, likely by something hitting the walls and I consider the landlord should be reasonably compensated for this damage.
I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered of $431.25 is proved. I have made no deduction for depreciation as the claim is for repairs to the damaged areas only.

LAWNS AND WEEDS

The landlord claims the cost to remedy lawn damage and weed some areas of the yard. The lawn was damaged during the tenancy by way of the tenant’s dog causing tracks in the grass. The tenant accepted causing the damage but said that they endeavoured to remedy it by placing grass seed and topsoil on the damage. The tenant says it required watering which they could not do after they left.
I consider the damage to the lawn to be pet damage. The damage was present at the end of the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. In addition, I accept that some weeding was required. The amount ordered of $335.80, as claimed by the landlord is proved with the pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs and an invoice. Bond
Part of the bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amount’s ordered. The balance is to be paid to the tenant. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has been wholly or partly successful in their claim, I have ordered that the tenant reimburse the filing fee. 10 Suppression
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, 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. 11
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, 10 RTA, s 102. 11 RTA, s 95A (1). order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order that the Tribunal considers appropriate. 12
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been substantially successful in defending the claim; however, the degree of damage was minor and covered by the bond and there was no suggestion that in all other respects they did not comply with their obligations for this long tenancy, therefore I will allow name suppression for the tenant’s as the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publication.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5416649 — net $795.05 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$335.80	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Wall damage	$431.25	Repairs: Wall damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$795.05
Bond	$1,980.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$795.05

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay A1 Property Managers Limited $795.05 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: A1 Property Managers Limited: $795.05 [The tenant/s]: $1,184.95

The claim for curtain cleaning is withdrawn.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The claim for curtain cleaning was withdrawn. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. The Law – tenant’s obligations at the end of the tenancy
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1 The Law - Tenants responsibility for damage
A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 2 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 3
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 4 1 RTA, 40(1)(e). 2 RTA, s 40 (2)(a). 3 RTA s 40(2)(a), 41, 49B.
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). 5 Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 6 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 7
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional, is pet damage 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. 8 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. 9
In assessing a claim for compensation, 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

THE CLAIMS

WALL REPAIRS

The landlord claims compensation for wall repairs for damage to the entranceway corner, a chip under the living room light switch and holes in the garage wall. The landlord says the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant accepted liability for the damage to the holes in the garage. The tenant disputed the remainder of the claim. The tenant did not explain how the remaining damage was caused but says it is fair wear and tear, given the length of the tenancy, being more than 6 years.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs in support of the claim. An invoice was provide in support of the claim. The property was a new build at the start of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy there were numerous small dents and marks on the walls. The landlord has not claimed compensation for these, which reflects that there has been fair wear and tear 4 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 5 RTA s 49B(3)(a). 6 RTA, s 49B(3)(b). 7 RTA s 49B(3A)(a). 8 RTA s 49B(1). 9 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. over this tenancy. However, the claim for compensation reflects the small amount of damage that went beyond fair wear and tear and I consider was likely caused carelessly by the tenant or someone in the premises with the tenant’s permission, likely by something hitting the walls and I consider the landlord should be reasonably compensated for this damage.
I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered of $431.25 is proved. I have made no deduction for depreciation as the claim is for repairs to the damaged areas only.

LAWNS AND WEEDS

The landlord claims the cost to remedy lawn damage and weed some areas of the yard. The lawn was damaged during the tenancy by way of the tenant’s dog causing tracks in the grass. The tenant accepted causing the damage but said that they endeavoured to remedy it by placing grass seed and topsoil on the damage. The tenant says it required watering which they could not do after they left.
I consider the damage to the lawn to be pet damage. The damage was present at the end of the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. In addition, I accept that some weeding was required. The amount ordered of $335.80, as claimed by the landlord is proved with the pre-tenancy and post-tenancy photographs and an invoice. Bond
Part of the bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amount’s ordered. The balance is to be paid to the tenant. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has been wholly or partly successful in their claim, I have ordered that the tenant reimburse the filing fee. 10 Suppression
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, 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. 11
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, 10 RTA, s 102. 11 RTA, s 95A (1). order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order that the Tribunal considers appropriate. 12
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been substantially successful in defending the claim; however, the degree of damage was minor and covered by the bond and there was no suggestion that in all other respects they did not comply with their obligations for this long tenancy, therefore I will allow name suppression for the tenant’s as the tenant’s interests outweigh the public interest in publication.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416649 — Property damage at 69 Lydiard Drive, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5416649 — Property damage at 69 Lydiard Drive, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

THE CLAIMS

WALL REPAIRS

LAWNS AND WEEDS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

THE CLAIMS

WALL REPAIRS

LAWNS AND WEEDS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions