What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4749665?

The tribunal order states: Geoffrey David Tutty and Carroll Ann Herewaina Edwards to pay

How much money was awarded in case 4749665?

Lawns and Garden Work: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $530.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $97.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4749665?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4749665?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9861965-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4749665?

The tribunal order states: Geoffrey David Tutty and Carroll Ann Herewaina Edwards to pay

How much money was awarded in case 4749665?

Lawns and Garden Work: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $530.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $97.65 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4749665?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4749665?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9861965-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

70B Olliviers Road, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4749665 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4749665 — net $1,777.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: Cost of replacing ready lawn damaged by BBQ and pots	$500.00	Lawns and Garden work: Cost of replacing ready lawn damaged by BBQ and pots
Repairs: Allowance for some wall damage	$530.00	Repairs: Allowance for some wall damage
Insurance excess sum as compensation for carpet damage	$650.00	Insurance excess sum as compensation for carpet damage
Replace furnishings: Yellow Council bin replacement	$97.65	Replace furnishings: Yellow Council bin replacement
Net award	$1,777.65
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,777.65

Order

Geoffrey David Tutty and Carroll Ann Herewaina Edwards to pay Accommodation Centre Limited as agent for H Kaur $1,777.65 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (6461728-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Accommodation Centre Limited as agent for H Kaur: $1,777.65 Geoffrey David Tutty and Carroll Ann Herewaina Edwards: $62.35

Reasons

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

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
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 under section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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) under section 49B(3)(b) of the Act.
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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.
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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
During the tenancy the tenant placed a barbeque and various pots on the newly laid ready lawn. This caused damage to the lawn which was unable to be repaired. A large proportion of the lawn had to be replaced. This entailed removing the existing dead turf and dumping it and replacing it with new lawn. Although the area is not large the invoice for the work amounted to $500.00.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant accepted liability for the damage but considered the amount claimed to be excessive.
The landlord provided an invoice to prove the amount claimed and the amount ordered is proved.
The landlord claimed for the cost of repainting almost the entire interior. The amount claimed for repairs and painting was $1592.75 and an invoice and photographs were supplied to support the claim.
The tenants accepted that they had caused damage to four walls due to furniture and a television being placed up against those walls. This damage was visible in photographs provided by the landlord.
The tenants disputed liability for other wall damage. They consider that other damage pointed out by the landlord was fair wear and tear and felt that the walls had not been prepared well, resulting in surfaces that were more susceptible to damage from fair wear and tear. They claimed that there had been no splashback provided behind the stove to protect that area from cooking damage. They denied responsibility for the full amount claimed.
The landlord provided photographs and a quote and invoice to support its claim. The photographs clearly showed damage to walls as accepted by the tenants (four walls). Other damage claimed was more difficult to see from the photographs and photographs did not show all areas claimed.
I find that the tenants did cause damage to some walls in the property, and I have awarded $530.00 to the landlord to represent the cost of repair and repainting these areas. I find that other wall damage is fair wear and tear or is unproven.
Although a landlord may wish to have the property left just as it was at the beginning of the tenancy, particularly when the property was brand new, this is not reasonable and is not required by the Act. I do not consider that the tenant is liable to pay for the repainting of (almost) the entire interior.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord claimed for a replacement yellow bin as this was taken by the council for noncompliance. The tenant acknowledged that they had received a noncompliance sticker but claimed this was due to other people placing non- compliant material in the bin. The bin was removed by the council on the last bin day of the tenancy due to new noncompliance.
Although it is possible that the bin could have been contaminated by others on prior occasions, it is the occupant’s responsibility to ensure compliance and I find it more likely than not that some non-recyclable material found its way into the bin during the process of the tenant’s moving out of the property and this resulted in the bin being removed.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord claimed for carpet replacement in one room due to four small burns, consistent with cigarette burns, in the carpet. The landlord claimed that the carpet was not able to be repaired due to the nature and placement of the burns.
The landlord provided photographs and a quotation to show the damage and support the claimed amount.
Although the initial claim was for replacement cost, being $1442.00, the landlord modified this during the hearing to reflect the insurance excess amount detailed on the Tenancy agreement, being $650.00.
The tenants denied that anyone had smoked in the house and denied that the damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant suggested that a tradesperson may have caused the damage after the tenancy ended.
I find it most likely that the damage occurred during the tenancy and the photographs support that finding. I also find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.
As both parties have had some success, the filing fee lies where it falls.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4749665 — net $1,777.65 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work: Cost of replacing ready lawn damaged by BBQ and pots	$500.00	Lawns and Garden work: Cost of replacing ready lawn damaged by BBQ and pots
Repairs: Allowance for some wall damage	$530.00	Repairs: Allowance for some wall damage
Insurance excess sum as compensation for carpet damage	$650.00	Insurance excess sum as compensation for carpet damage
Replace furnishings: Yellow Council bin replacement	$97.65	Replace furnishings: Yellow Council bin replacement
Net award	$1,777.65
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,777.65

Order

Geoffrey David Tutty and Carroll Ann Herewaina Edwards to pay Accommodation Centre Limited as agent for H Kaur $1,777.65 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (6461728-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Accommodation Centre Limited as agent for H Kaur: $1,777.65 Geoffrey David Tutty and Carroll Ann Herewaina Edwards: $62.35

Reasons

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

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
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 under section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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) under section 49B(3)(b) of the Act.
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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.
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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
During the tenancy the tenant placed a barbeque and various pots on the newly laid ready lawn. This caused damage to the lawn which was unable to be repaired. A large proportion of the lawn had to be replaced. This entailed removing the existing dead turf and dumping it and replacing it with new lawn. Although the area is not large the invoice for the work amounted to $500.00.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant accepted liability for the damage but considered the amount claimed to be excessive.
The landlord provided an invoice to prove the amount claimed and the amount ordered is proved.
The landlord claimed for the cost of repainting almost the entire interior. The amount claimed for repairs and painting was $1592.75 and an invoice and photographs were supplied to support the claim.
The tenants accepted that they had caused damage to four walls due to furniture and a television being placed up against those walls. This damage was visible in photographs provided by the landlord.
The tenants disputed liability for other wall damage. They consider that other damage pointed out by the landlord was fair wear and tear and felt that the walls had not been prepared well, resulting in surfaces that were more susceptible to damage from fair wear and tear. They claimed that there had been no splashback provided behind the stove to protect that area from cooking damage. They denied responsibility for the full amount claimed.
The landlord provided photographs and a quote and invoice to support its claim. The photographs clearly showed damage to walls as accepted by the tenants (four walls). Other damage claimed was more difficult to see from the photographs and photographs did not show all areas claimed.
I find that the tenants did cause damage to some walls in the property, and I have awarded $530.00 to the landlord to represent the cost of repair and repainting these areas. I find that other wall damage is fair wear and tear or is unproven.
Although a landlord may wish to have the property left just as it was at the beginning of the tenancy, particularly when the property was brand new, this is not reasonable and is not required by the Act. I do not consider that the tenant is liable to pay for the repainting of (almost) the entire interior.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord claimed for a replacement yellow bin as this was taken by the council for noncompliance. The tenant acknowledged that they had received a noncompliance sticker but claimed this was due to other people placing non- compliant material in the bin. The bin was removed by the council on the last bin day of the tenancy due to new noncompliance.
Although it is possible that the bin could have been contaminated by others on prior occasions, it is the occupant’s responsibility to ensure compliance and I find it more likely than not that some non-recyclable material found its way into the bin during the process of the tenant’s moving out of the property and this resulted in the bin being removed.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord claimed for carpet replacement in one room due to four small burns, consistent with cigarette burns, in the carpet. The landlord claimed that the carpet was not able to be repaired due to the nature and placement of the burns.
The landlord provided photographs and a quotation to show the damage and support the claimed amount.
Although the initial claim was for replacement cost, being $1442.00, the landlord modified this during the hearing to reflect the insurance excess amount detailed on the Tenancy agreement, being $650.00.
The tenants denied that anyone had smoked in the house and denied that the damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant suggested that a tradesperson may have caused the damage after the tenancy ended.
I find it most likely that the damage occurred during the tenancy and the photographs support that finding. I also find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.
As both parties have had some success, the filing fee lies where it falls.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4749665 — Property damage at 70B Olliviers Road, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4749665 — Property damage at 70B Olliviers Road, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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