What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4500508?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (5913813-004) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4500508?

Finishing Door: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $127.99 awarded to landlord; Painting Window: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $10.46 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $51.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4500508?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4500508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9328628-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4500508?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (5913813-004) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4500508?

Finishing Door: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $127.99 awarded to landlord; Painting Window: $40.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $10.46 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $51.80 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4500508?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4500508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9328628-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

80 Kauri Point Road, Laingholm, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4500508 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4500508. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$51.80	Water rates
Repairs to garage roof	$200.00	Repairs to garage roof
Painting window	$40.00	Painting window
Finishing door	$60.00	Finishing door
Lawns and Garden work	$127.99	Lawns and Garden work
Smoke alarm battery	$10.46	Smoke alarm battery

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4500508. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$51.80	Water rates
Repairs to garage roof	$200.00	Repairs to garage roof
Painting window	$40.00	Painting window
Finishing door	$60.00	Finishing door
Lawns and Garden work	$127.99	Lawns and Garden work
Smoke alarm battery	$10.46	Smoke alarm battery

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (5913813-004) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

These claims concern the tenancy of a two bedroom home in Laingholm beginning in May 2021 and ending in January 2023. Mrs Yates inherited the home from her mother in approximately 2005. She and Mr Yates live next door down a right of way. The property was originally managed by Crockers but by the end of the tenancy Mr and Mrs Yates appear to have been largely managing the tenancy themselves.
Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Bailey confirmed that he had authority to represent Ms Knott. He is currently overseas (as is Ms Knott) and so attended by phone. Mrs Yates attended with her husband, Mr Yates. Mrs Yates confirmed that she was happy for Mr Yates to represent her at the hearing. It was clear at the hearing that both Mr and Mrs Yates managed the property together and so I refer to both of them as “the landlord” in this decision although Mrs Yates is the only named party.
The first hearing in this matter was adjourned to give Mr Bailey the opportunity to review the landlord’s evidence. The resumed hearing was then held by phone.
The parties have filed cross claims. The tenants seek the refund of their bond, which they are entitled to unless the landlord is able to prove their claims. The landlords have applied for compensation for various cleaning, rubbish removal and damage following the end of the tenancy, loss of rental income and exemplary damages.
The landlord bears the onus of proving their claims to the civil standard; that is, on the balance of probabilities.
For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all of the evidence filed in this application, but the parties should be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence before making this determination.

How much is owed for water rates?

The parties are agreed at the hearing that the tenants owe $51.80 for water so I order payment of $51.80 by consent.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlords say that the tenants did not leave the property clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Cleaning
The landlord says that the tenants cooked frequently without using the extractor fan, and so the kitchen interior was left greasy. They seek compensation of $419.77 for $400 for cleaning (8 hours cleaning by the landlords personally at $50 per hour) together with one litre of miracle solvent at $19.77.
The tenant says that they did leave the property clean and tidy, and even came back to clean at the request of the landlord after they had left. They denied that there was grease left behind. They say that the property is old and in original condition and that it is not possible to get it perfectly clean and tidy.
I remind myself when considering the evidence that a tenant must only leave the property “reasonably clean and tidy” overall. There is an expectation that the landlord will have to do additional cleaning to get the property into a condition where it is ready to be re-let.
I was provided with very few photographs of the interior of the property. The photos produced in support of the claim for cleaning are very close up photos of specific areas, for example on top of the pelmets in the kitchen. These photos showed some dust and dead insects. There were no photos provided at the start of the tenancy until the second hearing, but these are all photos taken from a distance and it is not possible to make a good comparison.
Having considered the evidence before me I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the property was not left “reasonably clean and tidy”. I accept that there may have been some areas that needed extra attention, but on the evidence before me I am unable to find that it was not left reasonably clean and tidy overall.
This claim is not proved. Rubbish
The landlords claim that the tenants left their bin full of rubbish including rotting food so that the bin needed to be sanitised. They seek compensation of $44 being one hour of cleaning at $40 per hour and $4 for bleach.
While tenants are required to remove all rubbish there is no expectation that they must leave the council bin empty. In this case the tenants appear to have put all of their rubbish in the council bin, but as the collection occurred the day before they moved out, and so the rubbish on their moving day had to wait for the next collection. I accept that it may have been unpleasant for the landlords to have to sanitise the bin but am unable to find any breach of the tenant’s obligations.
This claim is not proved. Lawns
The landlords claim that the tenants did not mow the lawns regularly so that when the lawn was finally mowed at the end of the tenancy it was very long and much of the grass had died. They also say that the tenants left garden waste on part of the lawn causing it to die. They seek the cost of $391.00 for total lawn restoration made up as follows:
The tenants said that the lawn gets very dry in summer and wet in winter, and that as they left in summer the lawn was very dry. They say that the lawn will grow back in time.
The landlords provided various photos of the lawn at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The first photos show the lawn in good condition, but the photos at the end show the grass to be very sparse and missing in a number of areas.
Although the landlords referred to numerous inspection reports taken during the tenancy (I understand by Crockers) these were not produced in evidence and so I have not been able to review them.
The only independent evidence before me is the landlord’s description of a report obtained on the advice of Crockers from a professional gardener who expressed the view that re-sowing the lawn was not necessary but that the lawn would take six months or so to recover with frequent watering, fertilising and mowing, and that the area on which garden waste was left might potentially need re-sowing.
I find this claim proved in part. The photos show a lawn in good condition at the start of the tenancy and in average to poor condition at the end of the tenancy. The opinion of the professional gardener is that the lawn would need frequent fertilising, watering and mowing. I allow $30 for one hour clearing garden waste (the usual rate allowed in the Tribunal), the purchase of fertiliser at $7.99 and an additional three hours combined for watering and additional mowing at $30 per hour ($90). The total compensation is $127.99.
I have not allowed for time spent travelling (this is not a “loss” for which the Tribunal generally orders compensation), waterblasting (as this would be expected following a tenancy of 18 months in any event) or grass seed and sowing time/bird netting (as I have not been provided with any evidence that this was required).

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The tenants sawed through two rafters in the garage so as to fit in a commercial fridge, but did not properly reinstate them when they left and did not properly re-attach the roofing iron or flashing; b. The tenants made a hole in the varnished mahogany bedroom door and so Mr Bailey’s brother (who is a builder) fitted a cheap undercoated hardboard door, but did not paint with topcoat, and the door did not close properly; c. The tenants broke a window, had it professionally glazed, but did not paint the sealant; d. The tenants broke a coolee shade, two venetian blinds, an older pendant light. In addition a smoke alarm battery and two lightbulbs needed to be replaced. Garage roof
There was no dispute that the tenants had cut through two rafters so as to fit a large commercial fridge into the garage. The landlords were not happy with this but agreed that the tenants would repair the area (by engaging a builder, likely Mr Bailey’s brother) when they moved out.
Mr Yates spent considerable time at the hearing showing video evidence, photographs, and explaining the issues with the roof. He says that although the two rafters were replaced, they were load bearing and so needed to be reinstated using filtching and bolting, but were not, and that the roof iron and flashing were not properly reattached and so the roof could potentially have come away during high winds.
The landlords sought compensation of $734.14 for the repairs to the roof which Mr Yates did himself, including travelling time to Mitre 10 Mega ($120 being hours at $60 per hour) and five hours of labour at $60 per hour ($300) plus materials.
Having carefully reviewed the extensive video and photograph evidence, and having heard from both parties, I have reached the view that the rafters were not reinstated as had been agreed and that the roofing iron was not properly re- attached. However there is a high degree of betterment in the repairs effected by Mr Yates. The garage is old. The roofing iron appeared to be in average condition. It is now considerably improved and painted.
In my view a reasonable amount of compensation in all the circumstances is $200.00. I order that amount. Door and window
The broken window and door were likely caused through carelessness. They are more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant replaced the door but did not finish it as the landlord would have wished. The landlord seeks $300.20 for paint, sandpaper, three hours of painting time at $60 per hour and one hour at $60 for repositioning the striker plate.
In my view, as the door was undercoated only the tenant should pay for some painting and it is reasonable for the landlord to do work to ensure the door closes properly. However the tenant should not have to pay for three coats of paint, and there is a degree of betterment as the landlord now has a new door. I order $60.00 for finishing the door.
The tenant had the window replaced but did not paint the sealant. The landlord seeks $65.00 being $5.00 per paint and one hour of painting time including fetching a ladder. This is a small job and in my view appropriate compensation is $40.00. Coolie light, venetian blinds, new lounge light, smoke alarm battery and lightbulbs
The landlord sought compensation of $342.10 for a replacement coolie light, replacement venetian blinds, a new lounge light, a smoke alarm battery and lightbulbs.
I do not have sufficient evidence showing the venetians and coolie lights at the beginning of the tenancy to find the claimed damage proved. The landlord claims that the items were broken when the tenants returned to clean the property at the landlords’ request.
The entry photos do show the lounge light and the landlords brought the actual light fitting to the hearing to prove the damage. The tenant accepted that the light was damaged but said that the light was very old and became damaged in the wind. While that damage is proven I do not consider any compensation to be payable because of the age of the light. The IRD deprecation schedules (Residential rental property chattels) provide that light fittings only have an estimated useful life of 10 years.
The tenants say that the light bulbs claimed were not working at the start of the tenancy. I was not provided with an ingoing inspection report confirming that all light bulbs were working and so am not prepared to order compensation for the two lightbulbs.
Tenants are required to replace smoke alarm batteries as required during the tenancy. I order $10.46 for the replacement battery. Claim for loss of rent
The landlords have claimed the sum of $835.77 for lost rental income. They say that they usually allow one week between tenancies to do any additional cleaning and minor maintenance work but in this case they could not readvertise again for an additional 13 days, and so seek rent for those days.
As I have only found only some of the claims proved, I do not consider that the tenants can be held responsible for any lost rental income. There were some additional maintenance issues that the landlord referred to for which they did not seek compensation but say should have been reported earlier. As I was not provided with the various inspection reports I am not in a position to make any finding about whether these issues were reported or not.
I note in addition that it is fairly common for landlords to allow between two to three weeks between tenancies while they attend to maintenance.
This claim is not proved. Claim for exemplary damages
The landlords also included a claim for exemplary damages in respect of two matters. However at the hearing Mr Yates explained that they had only included those matters as part of the overall factual matrix of the claims and did not seek exemplary damages.
I have therefore not considered the claim for exemplary damages, but note that neither matter appeared to likely to support a claim for exemplary damages in any event. Filing fee and name suppression
As the landlords have not been substantially successful I have not reimbursed the filing fee and have not made orders for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4500508 — Property damage at 80 Kauri Point Road, Laingholm, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4500508 — Property damage at 80 Kauri Point Road, Laingholm, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions