What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4756722?

The tribunal order states: Manpreet Kaur and Pardeep Singh to pay Kate Barnett and Tyson Barnett

How much money was awarded in case 4756722?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $68.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $104.86 awarded to landlord; Oil Smoke Stains: $450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756722?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756722?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10041493-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4756722?

The tribunal order states: Manpreet Kaur and Pardeep Singh to pay Kate Barnett and Tyson Barnett

How much money was awarded in case 4756722?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $68.57 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $104.86 awarded to landlord; Oil Smoke Stains: $450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4756722?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4756722?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10041493-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

126B Te Manatu Drive, Huntington, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4756722 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756722 — net $723.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$68.57	Rent arrears
Repairs: materials to repair 3 dents	$104.86	Repairs: materials to repair 3 dents
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Repairs: oil smoke stains	$450.00	0 to repaint an area that may be able to be cleaned. I order the tenants to pay $450.00 in compensation being my assessment of what professional cleaning or a…
Net award	$723.43
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$723.43

Order

Manpreet Kaur and Pardeep Singh to pay Kate Barnett and Tyson Barnett $723.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (6173567-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Kate Barnett and Tyson Barnett: $723.43 Manpreet Kaur and Pardeep Singh: $1,116.57

Reasons

Both tenants and Kate Barnett attended the hearing on 23 February 2024.
Both the landlords and tenants have made applications to the Tribunal as they disagree on some end-of-tenancy matters that affect the refund of the bond. Rent and materials to repair 3 minor dents in walls
The parties agree that:- a. There is $68.57 still to pay for rent for the last day of the tenancy on 28 October 2023. b. The tenants will pay the landlord $104.86 for the cost of materials to repair 3 minor dents in walls caused during the tenancy. Cleaning
A tenant has an obligation to leave tenancy premises “reasonably clean and tidy” which includes the lawns and gardens if these are part of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement; section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
“Reasonably clean and tidy” means that the floors are vacuumed, bathrooms and toilets cleaned, kitchen and laundry cupboards, benches, and appliances wiped. Professional carpet shampooing may be needed if it has been a long tenancy or there are stains or smells. Windows, walls, doors and skirtings, and light switches and fittings should be cleaned if marked or dirty. The house does not have to be spotless or pristine, or necessarily returned to the same standard it was presented in.
If a landlord wishes to clean the premises to a higher standard ready for an open home or in preparation for the next tenants, then they are free to do so - at their own cost and effort.
After viewing the photographs and hearing from both parties, I award the landlords $100.00 towards their time to clean a few missed areas inside the house being the inside of some windows, handprints on a white cabinet, and wiping the inside of the stove and a cupboard.
There were no photos to verify a claim for outside work. Damage in the kitchen
If a landlord claims that a tenant is liable for damage to the premises, they must prove that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is proved, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where damage is careless, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' 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. See section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
If damage is proven, the landlord can claim compensation to be put back in the same position it would have been in had the damage not occurred.
However, if one party is in breach in some way, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach; see section 49 RTA.
Also, the Tribunal will assess whether a claimed loss is reasonable.
There are many cases in the courts and the Tribunal that illustrate this. For example, in Furniss v Cochrane 15/01038/HE [2015] the Adjudicator declined to award the cost to re-concrete a patio where there was a relatively minor rust stain.
In Fortuna Trustee Ltd v Fawcet [2017] NZTT 4073303 it was decided that it was not reasonable to award the $7,000.00 claim to replace an entire marble kitchen bench-top where this had been damaged by multiple scratches and chips. Compensation was assessed to cover the cost of repairs ($563.50) which had improved some of the damage and a further $500.00 to recognise the cosmetic damage.
After considering all evidence, I make the below decisions:- a. The circular mark on the cabinet panel (beside the gas cook-top) most probably happened during the tenancy, appears to be a burn or heat- damage, and is careless damage for which the tenants are liable. b. The staining on the wall to the left-hand side of the rangehood and reaching to the ceiling was also caused during the tenancy and is most probably oil residue or perhaps smoke damage. This is careless damage for which the tenants are liable.
The landlord has supplied a letter from its insurer confirming the insurer has accepted a claim for the mark on the cabinet and agrees to a cash settlement of $905.58. The settlement is the quoted cost to replace the cabinet panel ($2,105.58) after deduction of the insurance excess ($1,200.00).
The insurer’s letter declines a claim for the smoke/oil stains on the wall and ceiling assessing that this is not a “sudden and accidental event” so is not covered under the policy.
The landlord provided a quote for cleaning, priming, and repainting the wall and ceiling at an estimated cost of $1,900.00 + GST = $2,185.00.
The landlord has not had either area of damage repaired so has not yet incurred any cost or loss.
My assessment of reasonable compensation is:- a. That it is not reasonable to replace the cabinet panel for an area of damage that is small (it looks to be 2 to 4 cm round) and which does not affect the use of the kitchen. There may be other solutions to repair, cover, or otherwise remediate the burn mark. For example, covering the cabinet panel with a heatproof splashback especially as it is next to the gas hob. The landlord has not investigated any other options, so I do not have any information to help me assess reasonable compensation. However, the landlord has received $905.58 as a cash settlement from the insurer. I find that this amount is reasonable compensation which means that the landlord has not suffered a loss. The tenants are not required to pay any additional compensation. b. Similarly, the landlord has not taken any steps to investigate whether the smoke / oil stains can be cleaned. A professional cleaner may be able to remedy the problem. The landlord said that the paint surface does not appear to be blistered or otherwise damaged. On the evidence available, I am not satisfied that it is reasonable to award over $2,000.00 to repaint an area that may be able to be cleaned. I order the tenants to pay $450.00 in compensation being my assessment of what professional cleaning or a splashback might cost.
I make no award for the filing fees paid.
The Tribunal may suppress parties’ names from the published order after weighing their interests and the public interest. I have decided not to suppress either the landlord or tenant names. The tenants did cause some damage and the landlord claimed unreasonable amounts on some claims, so the public interest supports publication; see s95A RTA.
The bond will be refunded in accordance with the amounts awarded.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4756722 — net $723.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$68.57	Rent arrears
Repairs: materials to repair 3 dents	$104.86	Repairs: materials to repair 3 dents
Cleaning	$100.00	Cleaning
Repairs: oil smoke stains	$450.00	0 to repaint an area that may be able to be cleaned. I order the tenants to pay $450.00 in compensation being my assessment of what professional cleaning or a…
Net award	$723.43
Bond	$1,840.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$723.43

Order

Manpreet Kaur and Pardeep Singh to pay Kate Barnett and Tyson Barnett $723.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,840.00 (6173567-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Kate Barnett and Tyson Barnett: $723.43 Manpreet Kaur and Pardeep Singh: $1,116.57

Reasons

Both tenants and Kate Barnett attended the hearing on 23 February 2024.
Both the landlords and tenants have made applications to the Tribunal as they disagree on some end-of-tenancy matters that affect the refund of the bond. Rent and materials to repair 3 minor dents in walls
The parties agree that:- a. There is $68.57 still to pay for rent for the last day of the tenancy on 28 October 2023. b. The tenants will pay the landlord $104.86 for the cost of materials to repair 3 minor dents in walls caused during the tenancy. Cleaning
A tenant has an obligation to leave tenancy premises “reasonably clean and tidy” which includes the lawns and gardens if these are part of the tenant’s obligations under the tenancy agreement; section 40(1)(e) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
“Reasonably clean and tidy” means that the floors are vacuumed, bathrooms and toilets cleaned, kitchen and laundry cupboards, benches, and appliances wiped. Professional carpet shampooing may be needed if it has been a long tenancy or there are stains or smells. Windows, walls, doors and skirtings, and light switches and fittings should be cleaned if marked or dirty. The house does not have to be spotless or pristine, or necessarily returned to the same standard it was presented in.
If a landlord wishes to clean the premises to a higher standard ready for an open home or in preparation for the next tenants, then they are free to do so - at their own cost and effort.
After viewing the photographs and hearing from both parties, I award the landlords $100.00 towards their time to clean a few missed areas inside the house being the inside of some windows, handprints on a white cabinet, and wiping the inside of the stove and a cupboard.
There were no photos to verify a claim for outside work. Damage in the kitchen
If a landlord claims that a tenant is liable for damage to the premises, they must prove that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is proved, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where damage is careless, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' 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. See section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
If damage is proven, the landlord can claim compensation to be put back in the same position it would have been in had the damage not occurred.
However, if one party is in breach in some way, the other party must take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach; see section 49 RTA.
Also, the Tribunal will assess whether a claimed loss is reasonable.
There are many cases in the courts and the Tribunal that illustrate this. For example, in Furniss v Cochrane 15/01038/HE [2015] the Adjudicator declined to award the cost to re-concrete a patio where there was a relatively minor rust stain.
In Fortuna Trustee Ltd v Fawcet [2017] NZTT 4073303 it was decided that it was not reasonable to award the $7,000.00 claim to replace an entire marble kitchen bench-top where this had been damaged by multiple scratches and chips. Compensation was assessed to cover the cost of repairs ($563.50) which had improved some of the damage and a further $500.00 to recognise the cosmetic damage.
After considering all evidence, I make the below decisions:- a. The circular mark on the cabinet panel (beside the gas cook-top) most probably happened during the tenancy, appears to be a burn or heat- damage, and is careless damage for which the tenants are liable. b. The staining on the wall to the left-hand side of the rangehood and reaching to the ceiling was also caused during the tenancy and is most probably oil residue or perhaps smoke damage. This is careless damage for which the tenants are liable.
The landlord has supplied a letter from its insurer confirming the insurer has accepted a claim for the mark on the cabinet and agrees to a cash settlement of $905.58. The settlement is the quoted cost to replace the cabinet panel ($2,105.58) after deduction of the insurance excess ($1,200.00).
The insurer’s letter declines a claim for the smoke/oil stains on the wall and ceiling assessing that this is not a “sudden and accidental event” so is not covered under the policy.
The landlord provided a quote for cleaning, priming, and repainting the wall and ceiling at an estimated cost of $1,900.00 + GST = $2,185.00.
The landlord has not had either area of damage repaired so has not yet incurred any cost or loss.
My assessment of reasonable compensation is:- a. That it is not reasonable to replace the cabinet panel for an area of damage that is small (it looks to be 2 to 4 cm round) and which does not affect the use of the kitchen. There may be other solutions to repair, cover, or otherwise remediate the burn mark. For example, covering the cabinet panel with a heatproof splashback especially as it is next to the gas hob. The landlord has not investigated any other options, so I do not have any information to help me assess reasonable compensation. However, the landlord has received $905.58 as a cash settlement from the insurer. I find that this amount is reasonable compensation which means that the landlord has not suffered a loss. The tenants are not required to pay any additional compensation. b. Similarly, the landlord has not taken any steps to investigate whether the smoke / oil stains can be cleaned. A professional cleaner may be able to remedy the problem. The landlord said that the paint surface does not appear to be blistered or otherwise damaged. On the evidence available, I am not satisfied that it is reasonable to award over $2,000.00 to repaint an area that may be able to be cleaned. I order the tenants to pay $450.00 in compensation being my assessment of what professional cleaning or a splashback might cost.
I make no award for the filing fees paid.
The Tribunal may suppress parties’ names from the published order after weighing their interests and the public interest. I have decided not to suppress either the landlord or tenant names. The tenants did cause some damage and the landlord claimed unreasonable amounts on some claims, so the public interest supports publication; see s95A RTA.
The bond will be refunded in accordance with the amounts awarded.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756722 — Property damage at 126B Te Manatu Drive, Huntington, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4756722 — Property damage at 126B Te Manatu Drive, Huntington, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions