What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4742760?

The tribunal order states: Diana Anuradha Rani and Vijay Anand Latchman to pay Barfoot & Thompson

How much money was awarded in case 4742760?

Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,797.83 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $660.02 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $108.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4742760?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4742760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10110086-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4742760?

The tribunal order states: Diana Anuradha Rani and Vijay Anand Latchman to pay Barfoot & Thompson

How much money was awarded in case 4742760?

Cleaning: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,797.83 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $660.02 awarded to tenant; Water Rates: $108.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4742760?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4742760?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10110086-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Pencaitland Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4742760 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4742760 — net $2,016.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates (29.8.23 to 27.9.23	$108.70		Water rates (29.8.23 to 27.9.23
Cleaning	$750.00		Cleaning
Repairs	$1,797.83		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$660.02	Rent credit
Total award	$2,676.97	$660.02
Net award	$2,016.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,016.97

Order

Diana Anuradha Rani and Vijay Anand Latchman to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Shen Xi And Yingpei Huang $2,016.97 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 (6086928-004) as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited$2,016.97 Diana Anuradha Rani and Vijay Anand Latchman $903.33

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
Following a hearing held on 4 March 2024 the matter was adjourned to today to allow service on the tenants of the landlord’s bundle of evidence, including the insurance assessor’s report.
The tenants confirm receipt of that evidence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent and water rates
The tenancy ended on 25 September 2023. There was some confusion over the water rates charges. The tenants provided evidence proving payment of the July and August water rates. They had a rent credit which they assumed had been applied to the September water rates.
The landlord’s evidence shows that the tenants’ rent credit remains in the ledger and has not been applied to the September water rates. The amount of those rates is proved by the WaterCare invoice. The tenants confirm that if their full rent credit is allowed for, they should be debited for the amount of the final water rates invoice.

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 tenants arranged for the carpets in the premises to be professionally cleaned and have provided a copy of the invoice for $345.00 paid by them for that work.
The tenants also arranged for cleaning of the premises (including the walls) to be undertaken at an agreed price of $1,000.00, but the cleaner became unwell, and the tenants attempted to clean the premises as best they could themselves.
Their evidence is that three days were spent by them thoroughly cleaning the premises.
The tenants acknowledge that in the room they used as a prayer room, smoke from their devotional candles had left marks on the walls and ceiling which they tried to clean but really only made the situation worse.
After the final inspection the property manager indicated to the tenants that in her view the premises had not been left reasonably clean and tidy and that cleaning work would be required. The tenants asked to be provided with a quote for the cleaning and repair work by the landlord’s contractors and that they be given an opportunity, if they chose, to have the work done themselves or by contractors of their choice.
The property manager indicated that due to financial pressures the owner needed to sell the property as soon as possible there was not really time for that.
The properly manager arranged for cleaning of the property to be undertaken and have provided an invoice showing payment for that work by the landlord of $1,782.50, including carpet cleaning of $240.00 (plus GST).
The tenants’ position is that having already paid a professional carpet cleaner they should not be required to pay for additional commercial cleaning of the carpets. They say that due to the amount of cleaning work that they undertook it cannot be reasonable that they be charged an additional $1,782.00 to bring the premises to a reasonably clean condition.
The tenants question whether the exit inspection photographs provided by the landlord were indeed taken after the tenants vacated. The property manager has given direct evidence, referring to the properties recorded on the photographs in question, that they were taken on 25 September 2023. I accept her evidence about that.
Finally, in relation to the cleaning charges, their tenants say that the landlords did not give them a fair opportunity to have the work done themselves or have it done at a lesser cost.
The photographs provided by the landlord from the final inspection show that there was staining to the carpets to an extent that it was reasonable for the landlord to have cleaned.
I fully accept the efforts the tenants went to themselves to have the carpets cleaned and I can understand why it seems unreasonable that they have to pay for a second commercial cleaning of the carpets. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the carpets are not left reasonably clean when they vacated. If their contractor did not do an adequate job, that is really a matter between them and their contractor.
The premises were put on the market for sale after the tenancy ended. The tenants’ obligation was to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy not to leave it in showroom condition.
The cleaner’s tax invoice provided by the landlord does not give a breakdown of what hours were spent on what particular cleaning tasks and at what hourly charge rate. That makes it especially difficult to assess what part of the charges might represent the costs of bringing the premises to a reasonable condition and what part of those charges might have been attributable to having the premises ready for marketing.
As indicated to the parties at the hearing, the situation requires that the Tribunal assist the evidence as to the condition of the premises when the tenants vacated and from that make an informed assessment of what would amount to reasonable compensation to the landlord for the cost of bringing the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Having undertaken that exercise after reviewing the pre and post tenancy inspection photographs in light of the parties’ oral evidence, I assist that compensation at $750.00.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
As noted, the tenants accept that smoke had significantly damaged the walls and ceilings of the prayer room at the top of the stairs. They do not believe that other parts of the property were significantly affected. They also note that the premises have not been repainted since they were built some eight years before the tenancy began. The landlord confirms that no interior repainting has been undertaken in that time.
The tenants acknowledge that there were 2 holes in walls that needed repair.
The landlord made an insurance claim for the smoke damage. That claim was assessed by a lost adjuster, who inspected the premises.
The claim was declined on the basis that the damage had occurred gradually over time so was damage not covered under the terms of the policy. In his report the loss adjuster records that: “After the tenants had moved out it was discovered the majority of the walls and ceilings of the dwelling exhibited signs of black smoke residue. The area most severely affected is at the top of the stairs. However, the smoke damage is present throughout the dwelling. Apparently during the tenants praying rituals they burn candles which has left a black waxy film on the walls and ceiling throughout the house. The attempts to wipe and clean the walls have been unsuccessful.... repairs will consist of painting walls and ceilings complete throughout the entire house. The only two areas which appear to be unaffected are the main bedroom closet and on suite. We discussed repairs with the painter who was on site, and he advised all areas should be washed with sanding soap. Once all the surfaces are cleaned, the walls and ceilings will require a sealant and one or two topcoats depending on the extent of the smoke damage. The painter provided a rough estimation of $7500.00 (upper range) to complete the repairs. We felt the quote was consistent with the damages noted.”
That assessment represents the best available independent assessment of the nature and extent of the damage. It corroborates the landlord’s assessment of the damage and I find it proved on balance that at the end of the tenancy, although to varying degrees, the premises as a whole were affected by the smoke residues, to the extent that an interior repaint was required as described in the lost adjuster’s report.
The landlord has provided the contractor’s invoice proving that the landlord paid $5,393.50 for the preparation and painting work. Given that the loss adjuster assessed $7,500.00 as a reasonable estimate for the repair work, I find those charges reasonable.
The landlord is entitled to compensation. In assessing the amount of that compensation, the landlord should be returned to the position it would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. That means that allowance must be made for the existing age and condition of the interior paint surfaces.
I would ordinarily consider that for rented residential premises, the interior paint work could be reasonably expected to have a useful life span of seven to eight years. As noted, the interior paint work on these premises was 8 years old by the end of the tenancy.
I also take into account the landlord’s evidence that the premises were owner occupied for most of those eight years and there is no real dispute that the interior paint work was in very good condition at the start of the tenancy. That seems apparent from the entry photographs.
Weighing those considerations, I consider it reasonable that the tenants contribute to the costs of the interior repaint to the extent 1/3 of the costs. That assessment recognises that but for the smoke damage, repainting would likely not have been necessary but at the same time it allowed the owner to present the property for sale, freshly painted.
The tenants are correct that in terms of s.49, “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
It is important to note too thought that the fundamental obligation is on the tenants to repair and damage and have the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition by the end of the tenancy not afterward.
I am satisfied that calculation of the awards of compensation made above, do not unfairly prejudice the tenants in terms of their opportunity to remediate the cleaning and damage themselves.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Shen Xi and Yingpei Huang have substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4742760 — net $2,016.97 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates (29.8.23 to 27.9.23	$108.70		Water rates (29.8.23 to 27.9.23
Cleaning	$750.00		Cleaning
Repairs	$1,797.83		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent credit		$660.02	Rent credit
Total award	$2,676.97	$660.02
Net award	$2,016.97
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,016.97

Order

Diana Anuradha Rani and Vijay Anand Latchman to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Shen Xi And Yingpei Huang $2,016.97 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,920.00 (6086928-004) as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited$2,016.97 Diana Anuradha Rani and Vijay Anand Latchman $903.33

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by video conference.
Following a hearing held on 4 March 2024 the matter was adjourned to today to allow service on the tenants of the landlord’s bundle of evidence, including the insurance assessor’s report.
The tenants confirm receipt of that evidence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent and water rates
The tenancy ended on 25 September 2023. There was some confusion over the water rates charges. The tenants provided evidence proving payment of the July and August water rates. They had a rent credit which they assumed had been applied to the September water rates.
The landlord’s evidence shows that the tenants’ rent credit remains in the ledger and has not been applied to the September water rates. The amount of those rates is proved by the WaterCare invoice. The tenants confirm that if their full rent credit is allowed for, they should be debited for the amount of the final water rates invoice.

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 tenants arranged for the carpets in the premises to be professionally cleaned and have provided a copy of the invoice for $345.00 paid by them for that work.
The tenants also arranged for cleaning of the premises (including the walls) to be undertaken at an agreed price of $1,000.00, but the cleaner became unwell, and the tenants attempted to clean the premises as best they could themselves.
Their evidence is that three days were spent by them thoroughly cleaning the premises.
The tenants acknowledge that in the room they used as a prayer room, smoke from their devotional candles had left marks on the walls and ceiling which they tried to clean but really only made the situation worse.
After the final inspection the property manager indicated to the tenants that in her view the premises had not been left reasonably clean and tidy and that cleaning work would be required. The tenants asked to be provided with a quote for the cleaning and repair work by the landlord’s contractors and that they be given an opportunity, if they chose, to have the work done themselves or by contractors of their choice.
The property manager indicated that due to financial pressures the owner needed to sell the property as soon as possible there was not really time for that.
The properly manager arranged for cleaning of the property to be undertaken and have provided an invoice showing payment for that work by the landlord of $1,782.50, including carpet cleaning of $240.00 (plus GST).
The tenants’ position is that having already paid a professional carpet cleaner they should not be required to pay for additional commercial cleaning of the carpets. They say that due to the amount of cleaning work that they undertook it cannot be reasonable that they be charged an additional $1,782.00 to bring the premises to a reasonably clean condition.
The tenants question whether the exit inspection photographs provided by the landlord were indeed taken after the tenants vacated. The property manager has given direct evidence, referring to the properties recorded on the photographs in question, that they were taken on 25 September 2023. I accept her evidence about that.
Finally, in relation to the cleaning charges, their tenants say that the landlords did not give them a fair opportunity to have the work done themselves or have it done at a lesser cost.
The photographs provided by the landlord from the final inspection show that there was staining to the carpets to an extent that it was reasonable for the landlord to have cleaned.
I fully accept the efforts the tenants went to themselves to have the carpets cleaned and I can understand why it seems unreasonable that they have to pay for a second commercial cleaning of the carpets. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the carpets are not left reasonably clean when they vacated. If their contractor did not do an adequate job, that is really a matter between them and their contractor.
The premises were put on the market for sale after the tenancy ended. The tenants’ obligation was to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy not to leave it in showroom condition.
The cleaner’s tax invoice provided by the landlord does not give a breakdown of what hours were spent on what particular cleaning tasks and at what hourly charge rate. That makes it especially difficult to assess what part of the charges might represent the costs of bringing the premises to a reasonable condition and what part of those charges might have been attributable to having the premises ready for marketing.
As indicated to the parties at the hearing, the situation requires that the Tribunal assist the evidence as to the condition of the premises when the tenants vacated and from that make an informed assessment of what would amount to reasonable compensation to the landlord for the cost of bringing the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Having undertaken that exercise after reviewing the pre and post tenancy inspection photographs in light of the parties’ oral evidence, I assist that compensation at $750.00.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
As noted, the tenants accept that smoke had significantly damaged the walls and ceilings of the prayer room at the top of the stairs. They do not believe that other parts of the property were significantly affected. They also note that the premises have not been repainted since they were built some eight years before the tenancy began. The landlord confirms that no interior repainting has been undertaken in that time.
The tenants acknowledge that there were 2 holes in walls that needed repair.
The landlord made an insurance claim for the smoke damage. That claim was assessed by a lost adjuster, who inspected the premises.
The claim was declined on the basis that the damage had occurred gradually over time so was damage not covered under the terms of the policy. In his report the loss adjuster records that: “After the tenants had moved out it was discovered the majority of the walls and ceilings of the dwelling exhibited signs of black smoke residue. The area most severely affected is at the top of the stairs. However, the smoke damage is present throughout the dwelling. Apparently during the tenants praying rituals they burn candles which has left a black waxy film on the walls and ceiling throughout the house. The attempts to wipe and clean the walls have been unsuccessful.... repairs will consist of painting walls and ceilings complete throughout the entire house. The only two areas which appear to be unaffected are the main bedroom closet and on suite. We discussed repairs with the painter who was on site, and he advised all areas should be washed with sanding soap. Once all the surfaces are cleaned, the walls and ceilings will require a sealant and one or two topcoats depending on the extent of the smoke damage. The painter provided a rough estimation of $7500.00 (upper range) to complete the repairs. We felt the quote was consistent with the damages noted.”
That assessment represents the best available independent assessment of the nature and extent of the damage. It corroborates the landlord’s assessment of the damage and I find it proved on balance that at the end of the tenancy, although to varying degrees, the premises as a whole were affected by the smoke residues, to the extent that an interior repaint was required as described in the lost adjuster’s report.
The landlord has provided the contractor’s invoice proving that the landlord paid $5,393.50 for the preparation and painting work. Given that the loss adjuster assessed $7,500.00 as a reasonable estimate for the repair work, I find those charges reasonable.
The landlord is entitled to compensation. In assessing the amount of that compensation, the landlord should be returned to the position it would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. That means that allowance must be made for the existing age and condition of the interior paint surfaces.
I would ordinarily consider that for rented residential premises, the interior paint work could be reasonably expected to have a useful life span of seven to eight years. As noted, the interior paint work on these premises was 8 years old by the end of the tenancy.
I also take into account the landlord’s evidence that the premises were owner occupied for most of those eight years and there is no real dispute that the interior paint work was in very good condition at the start of the tenancy. That seems apparent from the entry photographs.
Weighing those considerations, I consider it reasonable that the tenants contribute to the costs of the interior repaint to the extent 1/3 of the costs. That assessment recognises that but for the smoke damage, repainting would likely not have been necessary but at the same time it allowed the owner to present the property for sale, freshly painted.
The tenants are correct that in terms of s.49, “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
It is important to note too thought that the fundamental obligation is on the tenants to repair and damage and have the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition by the end of the tenancy not afterward.
I am satisfied that calculation of the awards of compensation made above, do not unfairly prejudice the tenants in terms of their opportunity to remediate the cleaning and damage themselves.
Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Shen Xi and Yingpei Huang have substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4742760 — Property damage at 28 Pencaitland Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4742760 — Property damage at 28 Pencaitland Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

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