What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4682029?

The tribunal order states: Joyce Nagelgast-Rutten and Thomas Nagelgast owe Spectre Property

How much money was awarded in case 4682029?

Tten And Thomas Nagelgast Owe Spectr…: $106.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4682029?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4682029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10064825-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4682029?

The tribunal order states: Joyce Nagelgast-Rutten and Thomas Nagelgast owe Spectre Property

How much money was awarded in case 4682029?

Tten And Thomas Nagelgast Owe Spectr…: $106.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4682029?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4682029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10064825-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 242 Great North Road, Henderson, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4682029 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4682029. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
tten and Thomas Nagelgast owe Spectre Property Management Services Limited Acting Agent For Suresh & Sarmila Mudjiar	$106.37		tten and Thomas Nagelgast owe Spectre Property Management Services Limited Acting Agent For Suresh & Sarmila Mudjiar
Bond	$212.75

Joyce Nagelgast-Rutten and Thomas Nagelgast owe Spectre Property Management Services Limited Acting Agent For Suresh & Sarmila Mudjiar $106.37 from the bond for paint repairs.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $212.75 (5786314-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Spectre Property Management Services Limited Acting Agent For Suresh & Sarmila Mudjiar: $106.37 Joyce Nagelgast-Rutten and Thomas Nagelgast: $106.38

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Lambert and Ms Erlikhman for the landlord. Ms Rutten and Mr Nagelgast the tenants.

This tenancy was for 8 months and ended on 6 August 2023.

The landlord has applied for compensation for repairing paint patches on walls. The parties left the amount of the repair which cost $212.75 with the bond centre.

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.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional 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. See section 49B(1) RTA.

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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The agents say following damage was caused during the tenancy: Patches of colour on the wall that did not match the original colour. The agents say they counted 15 patches in the premises. Ms Lambert says she told the tenant to get the colour professionally matched or leave the patches.

The tenants say they asked twice about the colour on the walls, once at the start of the tenancy and again at the end. They say they were not informed of the colour when they asked. They say Ms Lambert said the get the walls matched or leave it.

The tenants say they did their best to match the walls and painted the patches. They say in some light it looks matt rather than shiny. The tenant says the original paint was thin and rubbed off easily. The tenants say they had their trash can near one wall where it marked the wall and marks at another point where their desk sat.

It is a concern that only after 8 months, the walls would have marked at places where furniture was against it or in heavy use areas. This calls into question some of the quality of paint used. Neither the agents nor the owners knew the type of paint used when the premises was renovated.

There is an element of fair wear and tear in the claim. There was no intentional damage as the tenant relied on what the agent said at the time. The tenants tried to rectify the patches in reliance of what they were informed. I have determined the claim be split with the tenant bearing half the cost and the landlord half the cost.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation.

The agents sought name suppression and reimbursement of the filing fee.

There is public interest in other agents and landlords having information about such claims of damages.

Because neither party has had substantial success in the claim, the filing fee is not reimbursed to either party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4682029. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
tten and Thomas Nagelgast owe Spectre Property Management Services Limited Acting Agent For Suresh & Sarmila Mudjiar	$106.37		tten and Thomas Nagelgast owe Spectre Property Management Services Limited Acting Agent For Suresh & Sarmila Mudjiar
Bond	$212.75

Order

Joyce Nagelgast-Rutten and Thomas Nagelgast owe Spectre Property Management Services Limited Acting Agent For Suresh & Sarmila Mudjiar $106.37 from the bond for paint repairs.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $212.75 (5786314-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Spectre Property Management Services Limited Acting Agent For Suresh & Sarmila Mudjiar: $106.37 Joyce Nagelgast-Rutten and Thomas Nagelgast: $106.38

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Lambert and Ms Erlikhman for the landlord. Ms Rutten and Mr Nagelgast the tenants.
This tenancy was for 8 months and ended on 6 August 2023.
The landlord has applied for compensation for repairing paint patches on walls. The parties left the amount of the repair which cost $212.75 with the bond centre.

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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional 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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The agents say following damage was caused during the tenancy: Patches of colour on the wall that did not match the original colour. The agents say they counted 15 patches in the premises. Ms Lambert says she told the tenant to get the colour professionally matched or leave the patches.
The tenants say they asked twice about the colour on the walls, once at the start of the tenancy and again at the end. They say they were not informed of the colour when they asked. They say Ms Lambert said the get the walls matched or leave it.
The tenants say they did their best to match the walls and painted the patches. They say in some light it looks matt rather than shiny. The tenant says the original paint was thin and rubbed off easily. The tenants say they had their trash can near one wall where it marked the wall and marks at another point where their desk sat.
It is a concern that only after 8 months, the walls would have marked at places where furniture was against it or in heavy use areas. This calls into question some of the quality of paint used. Neither the agents nor the owners knew the type of paint used when the premises was renovated.
There is an element of fair wear and tear in the claim. There was no intentional damage as the tenant relied on what the agent said at the time. The tenants tried to rectify the patches in reliance of what they were informed. I have determined the claim be split with the tenant bearing half the cost and the landlord half the cost.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation.
The agents sought name suppression and reimbursement of the filing fee.
There is public interest in other agents and landlords having information about such claims of damages.
Because neither party has had substantial success in the claim, the filing fee is not reimbursed to either party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4682029 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 6, 242 Great North Road, Henderson, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4682029 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 6, 242 Great North Road, Henderson, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions