Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4758777 — Property damage at 77 Thames Street, Oamaru, Oamaru 9400
Decided 22 Apr 2024 · Published 22 Apr 2024 · Application 4758777
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
Order
- Clifford Wilson must pay Just Two Nominees Limited $388.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Repairs: Painting$600.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$620.44 Balance of Bond$232.25 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$388.19
- The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $232.25 (3210743-020) to Just Two Nominees Limited immediately.
- The claim for a replacement toilet is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended hearings by telephone.
- The landlord had applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- The only issues before me were compensation claims for a replacement toilet and paint damage caused by a fire extinguisher being discharged.
- While Mr Wilson is named as the tenant, he did not reside at the premises. He rented it on behalf of a local club to provide accommodation for members coming from overseas. The damage was caused by people at the premises with his permission.
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.
- The landlord claims that a toilet was damaged during the tenancy and required replacement. The landlord said that the damage was not evident on the end of tenancy inspection but was discovered later. He said that the damage had been covered by a poor repair attempt using silicone. Mr Wilson said that there was an issue with the toilet when the tenants first moved in which was repaired with silicone. The evidence did not establish that it is more likely than not that the toilet was damaged during the tenancy, requiring replacement. This claim is dismissed.
- The landlord also claimed $1,500 for paint repairs following a fire extinguisher being inappropriately discharged. Mr Wilson acknowledged that the extinguisher was discharged but said that the residue was cleaned up with sugar soap and there is no need to repaint the walls. The photographs tend to suggest that there is some wall damage that is more than normal wear and tear. However, repairs have not been completed. Both parties provided quotes for repair costs. The landlord’s was $1,500 and the tenant’s $977.50.
- I award $600 for painting repairs, having regard to the disparity in the quotes, the extent of damage evident from photographs, the condition of the existing paint work and the fact that repairs have not been done.
- As the landlord was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.