What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4698269?

The tribunal order states: Felicity Bennett must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Property

How much money was awarded in case 4698269?

Cleaning: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $706.68 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,322.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $193.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4698269?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4698269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9620573-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4698269?

The tribunal order states: Felicity Bennett must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Property

How much money was awarded in case 4698269?

Cleaning: $260.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $706.68 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,322.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $193.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4698269?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4698269?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9620573-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 6, 51 Hills Road, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4698269 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit 6, 51 Hills Road, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4698269 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4698269 — net $1,282.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$706.68	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: Garden work and dump fees	$193.20	Rubbish removal: Garden work and dump fees
Lock/key replacement: Front door	$230.00	Lock/key replacement: Front door
Carpet Cleaning: Throughout	$260.00	Carpet Cleaning: Throughout
Replace furnishings: Lounge carpet - insurance excess	$550.00	Replace furnishings: Lounge carpet - insurance excess
Repairs: Plaster and paint damaged walls	$1,322.50	Repairs: Plaster and paint damaged walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,282.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,282.82

Claims and awards for application 4698269 — net $1,282.82 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $706.68
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal: Garden work and dump fees

Amount: $193.20
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Garden work and dump fees

Lock/key replacement: Front door

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: Front door

Carpet Cleaning: Throughout

Amount: $260.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: Throughout

Replace furnishings: Lounge carpet - insurance excess

Amount: $550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Lounge carpet - insurance excess

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Lawns And Garden Work

Order

Felicity Bennett must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management as agent for Grant and Leane Radovanovich $1,282.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (6457770-010) to Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management as agent for Grant and Leane Radovanovich immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Taylor and Ms Layton attended on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for rubbish removal, garden work and dump fees ($193.20).
The tenant accepted that she did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy as required but questioned the amount of the cleaning invoice ($706.68).
The landlord provided exit photographs and an invoice in support of this claim and the photographs confirm the landlord’s claim that the marks to the walls throughout were considerable. I accept that the amount claimed is reasonable.
The tenant did not return the front door key and accepted the landlord’s claim for $230.00 for a replacement lock and key.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: carpet stains throughout particularly in the lounge, and damage to walls in five places requiring plastering and painting. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
There had been some communication throughout the tenancy regarding stains on the carpet. The tenant gave evidence that she had tried to remove some stains, but this had been unsuccessful.
The landlord has made three separate claims in relation to carpet. The tenant accepted the claim in relation to the insurance excess only.
The first carpet claim is for $260.00 for a general carpet clean. The landlord provided photographs and an invoice in support of this claim and gave oral evidence that this clean removed stains in some rooms to a satisfactory standard.
The carpet in the lounge was still badly stained and the landlord engaged another company, at a cost of $135.93, to try to remove these stains, but this was unsuccessful. The landlord is also claiming the amount of the insurance excess ($550.00) in relation to the lounge carpet.
Where 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 under section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
Both amounts in paragraph 15 relate to the same damage to the carpet in the lounge. The tenant is only liable for this damage up to the insurance excess. The landlord provided evidence to show that the insurance excess in this case is $550.00 and this is the amount ordered.
The amounts of $260.00 and $550.00 are proved.
The claim for additional lounge carpet cleaning of $135.39 is dismissed.
The landlord also provided photographs and an invoice in support of the claim for $1322.50 for plastering damage to the walls in five places and repainting the required areas.
The tenant gave evidence that the plastering had been completed but the painting work had not been done. The landlord confirmed that this was just a delay and that the work was due to be completed shortly.
The amount ordered is proved.
As Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management as agent for Grant and Leane Radovanovich has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4698269 — net $1,282.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$706.68	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: Garden work and dump fees	$193.20	Rubbish removal: Garden work and dump fees
Lock/key replacement: Front door	$230.00	Lock/key replacement: Front door
Carpet Cleaning: Throughout	$260.00	Carpet Cleaning: Throughout
Replace furnishings: Lounge carpet - insurance excess	$550.00	Replace furnishings: Lounge carpet - insurance excess
Repairs: Plaster and paint damaged walls	$1,322.50	Repairs: Plaster and paint damaged walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,282.82
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,282.82

Claims and awards for application 4698269 — net $1,282.82 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $706.68
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Rubbish removal: Garden work and dump fees

Amount: $193.20
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rubbish removal: Garden work and dump fees

Lock/key replacement: Front door

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement: Front door

Carpet Cleaning: Throughout

Amount: $260.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning: Throughout

Replace furnishings: Lounge carpet - insurance excess

Amount: $550.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: Lounge carpet - insurance excess

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage Lawns And Garden Work

Order

Felicity Bennett must pay Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management as agent for Grant and Leane Radovanovich $1,282.82 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (6457770-010) to Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management as agent for Grant and Leane Radovanovich immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Taylor and Ms Layton attended on behalf of the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit under section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for rubbish removal, garden work and dump fees ($193.20).
The tenant accepted that she did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy as required but questioned the amount of the cleaning invoice ($706.68).
The landlord provided exit photographs and an invoice in support of this claim and the photographs confirm the landlord’s claim that the marks to the walls throughout were considerable. I accept that the amount claimed is reasonable.
The tenant did not return the front door key and accepted the landlord’s claim for $230.00 for a replacement lock and key.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: carpet stains throughout particularly in the lounge, and damage to walls in five places requiring plastering and painting. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
There had been some communication throughout the tenancy regarding stains on the carpet. The tenant gave evidence that she had tried to remove some stains, but this had been unsuccessful.
The landlord has made three separate claims in relation to carpet. The tenant accepted the claim in relation to the insurance excess only.
The first carpet claim is for $260.00 for a general carpet clean. The landlord provided photographs and an invoice in support of this claim and gave oral evidence that this clean removed stains in some rooms to a satisfactory standard.
The carpet in the lounge was still badly stained and the landlord engaged another company, at a cost of $135.93, to try to remove these stains, but this was unsuccessful. The landlord is also claiming the amount of the insurance excess ($550.00) in relation to the lounge carpet.
Where 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 under section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
Both amounts in paragraph 15 relate to the same damage to the carpet in the lounge. The tenant is only liable for this damage up to the insurance excess. The landlord provided evidence to show that the insurance excess in this case is $550.00 and this is the amount ordered.
The amounts of $260.00 and $550.00 are proved.
The claim for additional lounge carpet cleaning of $135.39 is dismissed.
The landlord also provided photographs and an invoice in support of the claim for $1322.50 for plastering damage to the walls in five places and repainting the required areas.
The tenant gave evidence that the plastering had been completed but the painting work had not been done. The landlord confirmed that this was just a delay and that the work was due to be completed shortly.
The amount ordered is proved.
As Layton Holdings Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management as agent for Grant and Leane Radovanovich has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4698269 — Property damage at Unit 6, 51 Hills Road, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4698269 — Property damage at Unit 6, 51 Hills Road, Edgeware, Christchurch 8013

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions