What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4733590?

The tribunal order states: Bond Services is to refund the bond as follows:

How much money was awarded in case 4733590?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4733590?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4733590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10049300-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4733590?

The tribunal order states: Bond Services is to refund the bond as follows:

How much money was awarded in case 4733590?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4733590?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4733590?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10049300-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 907, 96 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4733590 — Property damage

Order

Bond Services is to refund the bond as follows: a. $806.12 to Chengliang Qian, calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord One day's rent for late key return$71.43 Cleaning stains at end of tenancy$247.25 Replacement lightbulbs$30.00 Missing (broken) microwave glass plate$57.44 Wall & window plastering and painting damage$300.00 Kitchen cabinetry - missing shelves replacement$100.00 Total$806.12 Deducted from bond$806.12 b. $1,193.88 to Xavier John Bennet.

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant’s other appeared as his authorised representative.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 2 September 2023. The landlord says he did not receive the keys until the early hours of 3 September and has claimed one day’s rent. He argues he did not have use of the premises on 3 September because he did not have the key until the morning and then, when I suggested this was not entirely true, he mentioned there were delays in getting the premises tenanted again because of damages which required repair. I tend to agree. I award $71.43.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The Landlord engaged a contractor to remove stains at the end of the tenancy at a cost of $247.25, which I do not consider to be unreasonable considering labour, equipment hire and travel to the CBD. I approve this claim.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs. The Tenant acknowledges three lightbulbs were missing at the end of the tenancy. I approve the Landlord’s claim for replacement lightbulbs of $30.00.
The Tenant also agrees to pay for a missing (broken) microwave glass plate. I approve this claim of the Landlord: $57.44

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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Wall & window plastering and painting; there was various damage to the walls, window trims and skirting boards. I have viewed photos and video footage, before and after the tenancy. Most but not all of areas identified by the Landlord are damage which exceeds normal fair wear and tear. However, the tenant has not disproved liability for the more obvious instances of wall and windowsill damage. I approve the following for remediation: $300.00 b. Kitchen cabinetry - missing shelves - two shelves inside a kitchen cabinet were missing, and the Tenant acknowledges removing these to make room to store other items inside the cabinet. The shelves, made of wood composite, were damaged by a leak in the sink. The Tenant did not advise the Landlord of the leak when it discovered it. It is unclear when the shelves were damaged, and when the leak was discovered. I consider the cost of replacing the shelves is excessive, particularly considering the Tenant’s evidence that cut melamine replacement shelves can be purchased at Bunnings for less than $100.00. I award $100.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4733590 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 907, 96 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010,

Tenancy Tribunal case 4733590 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 907, 96 Symonds Street, Grafton, Auckland 1010,

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?