How much money was awarded in case 5434288?

Property Damage: $112.70 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5434288?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5434288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13475661-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5434288?

Property Damage: $112.70 awarded to landlord; Walls and Doors: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5434288?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5434288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13475661-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

23 Gallaghan Close, Wigram, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5434288 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5434288 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5434288 — net $612.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace carpet used by tenant for repair (consent	$112.70	Replace carpet used by tenant for repair (consent
Repairs to walls and doors (excluding front door, tv and bracket removal) depreciated	$500.00	Repairs to walls and doors (excluding front door, tv and bracket removal) depreciated
Net award	$612.70
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$612.70

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agents For Bao Yi Cai On Behalf Of Lj Control Enterprises Ltd $612.70 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agents For Bao Yi Cai On Behalf Of Lj Control Enterprises Ltd: $612.70 [The tenant/s]: $1,867.30

The application for compensation for the cost of unblocking a drain is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Sun represented the landlord. One of the tenants attended by phone. The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter.

The landlord has applied for compensation for unblocking a drain and for repairs and painting of walls and doors throughout the premises.

Both parties have provided a large amount of documentary evidence. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it.

Are the tenants 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 1 .

I dismiss the claim for unblocking the drains. The tenancy ended on 23 April 2025. The tenant said he returned the keys on 27 March 2025. The new tenants reported problems with the drains on 5 May 2025.

Drains can block for many reasons. Only when a landlord proves careless or intentional damage can a claim against a tenant succeed. 1 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)

On the evidence provided I do not find this claim proved. This claim is better viewed as a claim for landlord maintenance. Interior repairs and painting

The landlord has claimed $5,933.97 for repairs to walls and doors and for painting. Also included in the invoice is a claim for carpet replacement. The tenant accepted that claim ($98.00 plus GST). I allow that by consent.

The tenant said that the damage to the front door was caused by neighbourhood cats scratching the door and urinating against it. I accept that explanation.

The tenants were the owners of the property for 7 years. They sold the property to the current owner in 2020 but continued to remain residing there as tenants.

The current landlord took over management of the property in December 2021 about 1 year after the sale.

The tenant said he installed the tv and bracket and it was included as a chattel in the agreement for sale and purchase, which he produced in evidence.

I have therefore excluded the costs for repairing and repainting the front door, and for removing the tv/bracket from the invoiced amount. The net amount after those deductions is $4,873.50 including GST. Depreciation

I must consider depreciation and fair wear and tear. The tenant confirmed that the premises had not been redecorated during the time he owned them, nor during the tenancy. Combined that is a period of about 12 years. It is probable that the period since the premises were last redecorated was much more than that, possible 15-20 years.

Regardless of the actual time, the claim for interior painting and repairs must be significantly depreciated given the time since the premises were last painted.

I have considered the photos both parties produced in evidence. There is some damage beyond fair wear and tear, but for premises that have not been decorated for such a long time, the need for redecoration and repair would be considered mostly due fair wear and tear, or pre-existing to some degree in this case.

Taking all relevant factors into account I award the landlord compensation for painting and repairs of $500.00 only to account for depreciation. The landlord cannot reasonably expect to have major redecoration work funded by the tenants after so long a period of time since the premises were last redecorated.

I make no award of the filing fee as the application is only successful to a small degree. Result

The landlord’s claims (including the claim accepted by the tenants) are successful in the amount of $612.70. The bond will be split between the parties - $612.70 to the landlord and $1,867.30 to the tenants. Name suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought, and are entitled to, name suppression as their defence to the application is mostly successful 2 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5434288 — net $612.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace carpet used by tenant for repair (consent	$112.70	Replace carpet used by tenant for repair (consent
Repairs to walls and doors (excluding front door, tv and bracket removal) depreciated	$500.00	Repairs to walls and doors (excluding front door, tv and bracket removal) depreciated
Net award	$612.70
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$612.70

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agents For Bao Yi Cai On Behalf Of Lj Control Enterprises Ltd $612.70 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Rempstone Property Management Limited As Agents For Bao Yi Cai On Behalf Of Lj Control Enterprises Ltd: $612.70 [The tenant/s]: $1,867.30
The application for compensation for the cost of unblocking a drain is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Sun represented the landlord. One of the tenants attended by phone. The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter.
The landlord has applied for compensation for unblocking a drain and for repairs and painting of walls and doors throughout the premises.
Both parties have provided a large amount of documentary evidence. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it.

Are the tenants 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 1 .
I dismiss the claim for unblocking the drains. The tenancy ended on 23 April 2025. The tenant said he returned the keys on 27 March 2025. The new tenants reported problems with the drains on 5 May 2025.
Drains can block for many reasons. Only when a landlord proves careless or intentional damage can a claim against a tenant succeed. 1 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)
On the evidence provided I do not find this claim proved. This claim is better viewed as a claim for landlord maintenance. Interior repairs and painting
The landlord has claimed $5,933.97 for repairs to walls and doors and for painting. Also included in the invoice is a claim for carpet replacement. The tenant accepted that claim ($98.00 plus GST). I allow that by consent.
The tenant said that the damage to the front door was caused by neighbourhood cats scratching the door and urinating against it. I accept that explanation.
The tenants were the owners of the property for 7 years. They sold the property to the current owner in 2020 but continued to remain residing there as tenants.
The current landlord took over management of the property in December 2021 about 1 year after the sale.
The tenant said he installed the tv and bracket and it was included as a chattel in the agreement for sale and purchase, which he produced in evidence.
I have therefore excluded the costs for repairing and repainting the front door, and for removing the tv/bracket from the invoiced amount. The net amount after those deductions is $4,873.50 including GST. Depreciation
I must consider depreciation and fair wear and tear. The tenant confirmed that the premises had not been redecorated during the time he owned them, nor during the tenancy. Combined that is a period of about 12 years. It is probable that the period since the premises were last redecorated was much more than that, possible 15-20 years.
Regardless of the actual time, the claim for interior painting and repairs must be significantly depreciated given the time since the premises were last painted.
I have considered the photos both parties produced in evidence. There is some damage beyond fair wear and tear, but for premises that have not been decorated for such a long time, the need for redecoration and repair would be considered mostly due fair wear and tear, or pre-existing to some degree in this case.
Taking all relevant factors into account I award the landlord compensation for painting and repairs of $500.00 only to account for depreciation. The landlord cannot reasonably expect to have major redecoration work funded by the tenants after so long a period of time since the premises were last redecorated.
I make no award of the filing fee as the application is only successful to a small degree. Result
The landlord’s claims (including the claim accepted by the tenants) are successful in the amount of $612.70. The bond will be split between the parties - $612.70 to the landlord and $1,867.30 to the tenants. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought, and are entitled to, name suppression as their defence to the application is mostly successful 2 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5434288 — Property damage at 23 Gallaghan Close, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5434288 — Property damage at 23 Gallaghan Close, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions