What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4700211?

The tribunal order states: Tonga Afungia and Lavinia Lutui-afungia must pay Point Property And Portfolio

How much money was awarded in case 4700211?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Flooring: $1,813.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $5,353.25 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700211?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10229316-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4700211?

The tribunal order states: Tonga Afungia and Lavinia Lutui-afungia must pay Point Property And Portfolio

How much money was awarded in case 4700211?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Flooring: $1,813.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $5,353.25 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700211?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10229316-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Valder Avenue, Otara, Auckland 2023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4700211 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4700211 — net $6,995.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace smoke alarms	$80.00	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs: flooring	$1,813.00	Repairs: flooring
Repairs: walls	$5,353.25	Repairs: walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,995.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,995.52

Order

Tonga Afungia and Lavinia Lutui-afungia must pay Point Property And Portfolio Management Limited as Agent for Lucy Liang & Chris Hilton $6,995.52 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 January 2024 and the telephone hearing on 16 April 2024. The landlord attended the first hearing in person while the tenant attended both hearings by telephone.
The tenancy started on 20 May 2020. The landlord applied for compensation, refund of the remaining bond of $271.17 and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 16 October 2023.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy as shown in the landlord’s photographs. The cost of cleaning ($1,667.50) has already been taken from the bond. To the extent it may be necessary I find that the cleaning costs deducted from the bond were reasonable.
There were 2 smoke alarms missing at the end of the tenancy. I award the replacement cost ($80.00).

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.
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 4 weeks' rent (see sections 40 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). The insurance excess was $1,200.00 and the weekly rent was $535.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent.
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.
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.
There was damage to numerous walls and doors in the property as shown in the landlord’s photographs. The walls in the hallway, bedroom 1, bedroom 2, and the toilet were damaged and defaced. The internal doors in the lounge, kitchen, bedroom 1, bedroom 2, bedroom 3, toilet, and bathroom doors were damaged and defaced. The exit inspection report also refers to damage to the doorframe in the kitchen. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant said there was a maintenance problem with the roof during the tenancy, causing leaks into the ceilings and walls. The tenant says this made the walls soft and contributed to the damage. There is mould evident in the photographs, especially in the bathroom and a bedroom.
The available evidence does not establish that there was a maintenance issue with the roof that could have caused the mould. The landlord provided invoices indicating that the gutters were regularly cleared. No emails or text messages were produced to show that the tenants complained about leaks. The photographs show an extractor fan in the bathroom and a rangehood in the kitchen, which would have provided ventilation. The tenant suggested that these were not working properly, but there is no evidence (for example, from a tradesperson) to support that.
The tenant said the house had been painted using exterior paint to save money and it was a cheap job. Over time the paint flaked off. In my opinion, this does not explain the extensive damage to the walls and doors, the nature of which is consistent with careless damage rather than a poor-quality renovation.
The tenant said the vinyl floor was not brand new and work was being done on it when they moved in. The tenant said only the kitchen and bathroom had vinyl flooring and it was of poor quality.
The landlord provided invoices from March 2020 showing that new vinyl flooring was installed in the bathroom, kitchen, and toilet. The vinyl flooring in the bathroom, kitchen, and toilet was discoloured at the end of the tenancy. The exit report referred to “pink stain marks”. The landlord said they tried to clean the discolouration, but it did not come off.
I accept that the vinyl flooring was permanently stained and needed replacing. I also find that the walls and doors were damaged and needed repair and repainting.
The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. The vinyl flooring was about 3 years old at the end of the tenancy and the walls were likely somewhat older, although renovation and repair works were performed in March 2020. The ingoing inspection report states that the walls were freshly painted, and the bathroom had been renovated. I award 70% of the flooring replacement cost ($1,813.00) and 70% of the repair costs ($5,353.25) to allow for depreciation. Filing fee
The landlord’s application has been successful. I award the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4700211 — net $6,995.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace smoke alarms	$80.00	Replace smoke alarms
Repairs: flooring	$1,813.00	Repairs: flooring
Repairs: walls	$5,353.25	Repairs: walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,995.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,995.52

Order

Tonga Afungia and Lavinia Lutui-afungia must pay Point Property And Portfolio Management Limited as Agent for Lucy Liang & Chris Hilton $6,995.52 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 January 2024 and the telephone hearing on 16 April 2024. The landlord attended the first hearing in person while the tenant attended both hearings by telephone.
The tenancy started on 20 May 2020. The landlord applied for compensation, refund of the remaining bond of $271.17 and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 16 October 2023.

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.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy as shown in the landlord’s photographs. The cost of cleaning ($1,667.50) has already been taken from the bond. To the extent it may be necessary I find that the cleaning costs deducted from the bond were reasonable.
There were 2 smoke alarms missing at the end of the tenancy. I award the replacement cost ($80.00).

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.
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 4 weeks' rent (see sections 40 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). The insurance excess was $1,200.00 and the weekly rent was $535.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent.
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.
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.
There was damage to numerous walls and doors in the property as shown in the landlord’s photographs. The walls in the hallway, bedroom 1, bedroom 2, and the toilet were damaged and defaced. The internal doors in the lounge, kitchen, bedroom 1, bedroom 2, bedroom 3, toilet, and bathroom doors were damaged and defaced. The exit inspection report also refers to damage to the doorframe in the kitchen. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant said there was a maintenance problem with the roof during the tenancy, causing leaks into the ceilings and walls. The tenant says this made the walls soft and contributed to the damage. There is mould evident in the photographs, especially in the bathroom and a bedroom.
The available evidence does not establish that there was a maintenance issue with the roof that could have caused the mould. The landlord provided invoices indicating that the gutters were regularly cleared. No emails or text messages were produced to show that the tenants complained about leaks. The photographs show an extractor fan in the bathroom and a rangehood in the kitchen, which would have provided ventilation. The tenant suggested that these were not working properly, but there is no evidence (for example, from a tradesperson) to support that.
The tenant said the house had been painted using exterior paint to save money and it was a cheap job. Over time the paint flaked off. In my opinion, this does not explain the extensive damage to the walls and doors, the nature of which is consistent with careless damage rather than a poor-quality renovation.
The tenant said the vinyl floor was not brand new and work was being done on it when they moved in. The tenant said only the kitchen and bathroom had vinyl flooring and it was of poor quality.
The landlord provided invoices from March 2020 showing that new vinyl flooring was installed in the bathroom, kitchen, and toilet. The vinyl flooring in the bathroom, kitchen, and toilet was discoloured at the end of the tenancy. The exit report referred to “pink stain marks”. The landlord said they tried to clean the discolouration, but it did not come off.
I accept that the vinyl flooring was permanently stained and needed replacing. I also find that the walls and doors were damaged and needed repair and repainting.
The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. The vinyl flooring was about 3 years old at the end of the tenancy and the walls were likely somewhat older, although renovation and repair works were performed in March 2020. The ingoing inspection report states that the walls were freshly painted, and the bathroom had been renovated. I award 70% of the flooring replacement cost ($1,813.00) and 70% of the repair costs ($5,353.25) to allow for depreciation. Filing fee
The landlord’s application has been successful. I award the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700211 — Property damage at 12 Valder Avenue, Otara, Auckland 2023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700211 — Property damage at 12 Valder Avenue, Otara, Auckland 2023

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