What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5459634 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5459634?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Vanity Top: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Repainting: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459634?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459634?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14018120-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5459634 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5459634?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Vanity Top: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Repainting: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5459634?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5459634?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14018120-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

30 Harrowfield Drive, Harrowfield, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5459634 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5459634 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wall repainting	$750.00	Wall repainting
Replace vanity top	$250.00	Replace vanity top
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,028.00
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,028.00

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Diane Billington $1,028.00 from the bond, calculated below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (BN-10059592) immediately apportioned as follows: Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Diane Billington: $1,028.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1052.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The hearing start time was changed to avoid conflict with the tenant’s other commitments but the tenant couldn’t be contacted by phone

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

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 1 .

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) 2 .

Exit photos provided by the landlord show that during the tenancy the bathroom vanity top was broken. The landlord made an insurance claim which was accepted, with the landlord required to pay an excess on the claim of $250.00. The landlord is entitled to be compensated for that excess loss.

With the best intentions, the tenant patched and painted some walls in the premises. Her communications with the property manager about it show that she believed the paint had been left over from painting work the landlord had done earlier, so would be a match with the other wall paint.

The exit inspection photos show that unfortunately the tenant’s paintwork did not leave the wall in acceptable condition. The patching is obvious and of different colour to the other wall paint.

The landlord was justified in deciding remedial painting work was required. The tenant should have checked in with the landlord before doing that repainting 3 .

The landlord had paint repair work done at a cost of $1,495.00. The invoice shows that all 4 walls were painted in 2 of the bedrooms and the living room, 2 walls were painted in one bedroom and the dining room.

The invoice makes it clear that the intent was to repaint where required to address the visible patching, rather than to completely repaint the premises. 1 S. 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 2 S. 49B(3)(a) RTA 3 S.42 RTA

This tenancy began on 10 July 2019 and the interior paintwork will have been at least 6 ½ years old by the end of the tenancy. The extent of the painting done means that the landlord will have obtaoined a benefit in that those painted areas will now not need to be redone as early as they would have otherwise. The landlord should therefore bear some of the cost.

During the hearing, I indicated a likely required sharing of the costs, 1/3 the landlord and 2/3 the tenant. As explained at the hearing, due to technical problems I did not have the painter’s invoice in front of me.

Having reviewed the evidence and in particular the painter’s invoice, noting that two of the bedrooms and the lounge had all four walls repainted, my view is now that a 50/50 sharing of the cost would be more reasonable.

Because Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Diane Billington has substantially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5459634 — net $1,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wall repainting	$750.00	Wall repainting
Replace vanity top	$250.00	Replace vanity top
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,028.00
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,028.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Diane Billington $1,028.00 from the bond, calculated below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 (BN-10059592) immediately apportioned as follows: Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Diane Billington: $1,028.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1052.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The hearing start time was changed to avoid conflict with the tenant’s other commitments but the tenant couldn’t be contacted by phone
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 1 .
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) 2 .
Exit photos provided by the landlord show that during the tenancy the bathroom vanity top was broken. The landlord made an insurance claim which was accepted, with the landlord required to pay an excess on the claim of $250.00. The landlord is entitled to be compensated for that excess loss.
With the best intentions, the tenant patched and painted some walls in the premises. Her communications with the property manager about it show that she believed the paint had been left over from painting work the landlord had done earlier, so would be a match with the other wall paint.
The exit inspection photos show that unfortunately the tenant’s paintwork did not leave the wall in acceptable condition. The patching is obvious and of different colour to the other wall paint.
The landlord was justified in deciding remedial painting work was required. The tenant should have checked in with the landlord before doing that repainting 3 .
The landlord had paint repair work done at a cost of $1,495.00. The invoice shows that all 4 walls were painted in 2 of the bedrooms and the living room, 2 walls were painted in one bedroom and the dining room.
The invoice makes it clear that the intent was to repaint where required to address the visible patching, rather than to completely repaint the premises. 1 S. 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 2 S. 49B(3)(a) RTA 3 S.42 RTA
This tenancy began on 10 July 2019 and the interior paintwork will have been at least 6 ½ years old by the end of the tenancy. The extent of the painting done means that the landlord will have obtaoined a benefit in that those painted areas will now not need to be redone as early as they would have otherwise. The landlord should therefore bear some of the cost.
During the hearing, I indicated a likely required sharing of the costs, 1/3 the landlord and 2/3 the tenant. As explained at the hearing, due to technical problems I did not have the painter’s invoice in front of me.
Having reviewed the evidence and in particular the painter’s invoice, noting that two of the bedrooms and the lounge had all four walls repainted, my view is now that a 50/50 sharing of the cost would be more reasonable.
Because Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for Diane Billington has substantially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459634 — Tenancy dispute at 30 Harrowfield Drive, Harrowfield, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5459634 — Tenancy dispute at 30 Harrowfield Drive, Harrowfield, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.