What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774830?

The tribunal order states: Lucielle Ricilielle Souza Rocha and Edvaldo Gomes da Rocha to pay King

How much money was awarded in case 4774830?

Property Damage: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774830?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774830?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10147698-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774830?

The tribunal order states: Lucielle Ricilielle Souza Rocha and Edvaldo Gomes da Rocha to pay King

How much money was awarded in case 4774830?

Property Damage: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774830?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774830?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10147698-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 2, 395 Ilam Road, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774830 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774830 — net $1,150.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wall damage	$1,150.00	Wall damage
Net award	$1,150.00
Bond	$1,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,150.00

Order

Lucielle Ricilielle Souza Rocha and Edvaldo Gomes da Rocha to pay King Huong Tiong $1,150.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (5215012-006) immediately apportioned as follows: King Huong Tiong: $1,150.00 Lucielle Ricilielle Souza Rocha and Edvaldo Gomes da Rocha: $450.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for repayment of their bond and the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and payment of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
This tenancy was from July 2020 to September 2023 a period of just over three years.
There was a tenancy of four or five years previously. Before the start of that tenancy, the landlord painted the interior of the premises.
Shortly after the tenants moved in in 2020, they painted the living/dining area, kitchen and bathroom.
There was damage to the premises at the start of the tenancy recorded in the tenancy agreement and in photographs taken by the landlord and by the tenant. The damage consisted of, • Marks on walls in the lounge. • Holes, fixings and other damage in walls of the master bedroom. • Damage to a wall in the hallway. • Damage to doors.
The tenants said that the laundry walls were not in good condition and damage shown there in the landlords’ photographs was behind the landlord’s appliances and so could not be seen at the ingoing inspection. I accept that.
There was some damage to the walls during the tenancy and the tenant patch repaired and painted it. The damage was still visible after the tenants had done so.
I found Ms Rocha to be an honest and reliable witness. She made appropriate admissions about damage. Law
Tenants must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises. There is no suggestion in this of intentional damage and so I am concerned only with careless damage.
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.
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).
The premises were insured but the landlord could not say what the excess was. That information was not given with the tenancy agreement as was required.
I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Claims Oven
The oven door did not close properly at the end of the tenancy and the landlord claims the cost of replacing the hinges.
They were replaced in November 2023, but the landlord has not received a bill for the work. The Tribunal called the repairer who said that the job was cancelled and so there was no bill.
It seems that the landlord will not have to pay for the repair and so the claim must be dismissed. Blinds
The vertical blinds in the master bedroom, which are above the bed, were missing one of the segments at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said that they cut carboard over the window because it was single glazed, and the blinds had provided no insulation. When they removed the cardboard, the end segment of the blinds fell off and it was not possible to reattach it. I accept that evidence.
The blinds are the original blinds from when the premises were built in 1993 and so they were 30 years old. It is likely that after that time they were somewhat fragile. The landlord said that there was no direct sunlight on the blinds. Even so they will have deteriorated over time.
I find that the tenants were not careless in damaging the blinds and even if they were, the blinds were at the end of their life and were due to be replaced. This claim is therefore dismissed. Wall Damage
There are several factors to consider in relation to this claim.
There was pre-existing damage. That affects the claim in two ways. I accept the tenants’ point that some of the damage claimed was not caused during the tenancy and so they are not liable for it. As well, the pre-existing damage contributes to the need for repairs and painting and so reduces the tenant’s liability.
The tenants have repaired and painted over some of the damage, and I accept the landlord’s point that the repairs and painting are not to a satisfactory standard. Generally, where tenants have done that, they will be liable to make good the damage.
Some of the damage is minor and not beyond fair wear and tear. That point is offset to some extent because the tenants have attempted repairs.
In my view the landlord’s claim, based on quotations, is overstated. The landlord said that the damaged walls would need to be completely repainted. That may be true for some damage, but some damage should be able to be repaired and painted satisfactory by patch repair and painting. I note that the landlord has tenanted the premises without doing any repairs or painting.
The premises bedrooms were last painted 7 or 8 years ago. As a rule of thumb, the Tribunal assumes that rented premises need redecoration about every 14 years. On that basis the painting has been brought forward and the landlords should get another 14 years rather than 7 years. That betterment reduces the tenant’s liability.
The claim is for $4,500. Calculating what the tenants should have to contribute to the cost of wall repairs and painting is not capable of mathematical calculation. Taking a broad-brush approach (no pun intended) I find that an award of $1,000 plus GST is appropriate being approximately 25% of the claim. I have therefore awarded $1,150. Filing Fees
The parties have had mixed success and so I make no award for filing fees. Suppression
Because the parties have had mixed success I can see no compelling reason to order name suppression for either side. The principle of open justice should prevail.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774830 — net $1,150.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wall damage	$1,150.00	Wall damage
Net award	$1,150.00
Bond	$1,600.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,150.00

Order

Lucielle Ricilielle Souza Rocha and Edvaldo Gomes da Rocha to pay King Huong Tiong $1,150.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 (5215012-006) immediately apportioned as follows: King Huong Tiong: $1,150.00 Lucielle Ricilielle Souza Rocha and Edvaldo Gomes da Rocha: $450.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for repayment of their bond and the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and payment of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
This tenancy was from July 2020 to September 2023 a period of just over three years.
There was a tenancy of four or five years previously. Before the start of that tenancy, the landlord painted the interior of the premises.
Shortly after the tenants moved in in 2020, they painted the living/dining area, kitchen and bathroom.
There was damage to the premises at the start of the tenancy recorded in the tenancy agreement and in photographs taken by the landlord and by the tenant. The damage consisted of, • Marks on walls in the lounge. • Holes, fixings and other damage in walls of the master bedroom. • Damage to a wall in the hallway. • Damage to doors.
The tenants said that the laundry walls were not in good condition and damage shown there in the landlords’ photographs was behind the landlord’s appliances and so could not be seen at the ingoing inspection. I accept that.
There was some damage to the walls during the tenancy and the tenant patch repaired and painted it. The damage was still visible after the tenants had done so.
I found Ms Rocha to be an honest and reliable witness. She made appropriate admissions about damage. Law
Tenants must not carelessly or intentionally damage the premises. There is no suggestion in this of intentional damage and so I am concerned only with careless damage.
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.
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).
The premises were insured but the landlord could not say what the excess was. That information was not given with the tenancy agreement as was required.
I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Claims Oven
The oven door did not close properly at the end of the tenancy and the landlord claims the cost of replacing the hinges.
They were replaced in November 2023, but the landlord has not received a bill for the work. The Tribunal called the repairer who said that the job was cancelled and so there was no bill.
It seems that the landlord will not have to pay for the repair and so the claim must be dismissed. Blinds
The vertical blinds in the master bedroom, which are above the bed, were missing one of the segments at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said that they cut carboard over the window because it was single glazed, and the blinds had provided no insulation. When they removed the cardboard, the end segment of the blinds fell off and it was not possible to reattach it. I accept that evidence.
The blinds are the original blinds from when the premises were built in 1993 and so they were 30 years old. It is likely that after that time they were somewhat fragile. The landlord said that there was no direct sunlight on the blinds. Even so they will have deteriorated over time.
I find that the tenants were not careless in damaging the blinds and even if they were, the blinds were at the end of their life and were due to be replaced. This claim is therefore dismissed. Wall Damage
There are several factors to consider in relation to this claim.
There was pre-existing damage. That affects the claim in two ways. I accept the tenants’ point that some of the damage claimed was not caused during the tenancy and so they are not liable for it. As well, the pre-existing damage contributes to the need for repairs and painting and so reduces the tenant’s liability.
The tenants have repaired and painted over some of the damage, and I accept the landlord’s point that the repairs and painting are not to a satisfactory standard. Generally, where tenants have done that, they will be liable to make good the damage.
Some of the damage is minor and not beyond fair wear and tear. That point is offset to some extent because the tenants have attempted repairs.
In my view the landlord’s claim, based on quotations, is overstated. The landlord said that the damaged walls would need to be completely repainted. That may be true for some damage, but some damage should be able to be repaired and painted satisfactory by patch repair and painting. I note that the landlord has tenanted the premises without doing any repairs or painting.
The premises bedrooms were last painted 7 or 8 years ago. As a rule of thumb, the Tribunal assumes that rented premises need redecoration about every 14 years. On that basis the painting has been brought forward and the landlords should get another 14 years rather than 7 years. That betterment reduces the tenant’s liability.
The claim is for $4,500. Calculating what the tenants should have to contribute to the cost of wall repairs and painting is not capable of mathematical calculation. Taking a broad-brush approach (no pun intended) I find that an award of $1,000 plus GST is appropriate being approximately 25% of the claim. I have therefore awarded $1,150. Filing Fees
The parties have had mixed success and so I make no award for filing fees. Suppression
Because the parties have had mixed success I can see no compelling reason to order name suppression for either side. The principle of open justice should prevail.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774830 — Property damage at Flat 2, 395 Ilam Road, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774830 — Property damage at Flat 2, 395 Ilam Road, Bryndwr, Christchurch 8053

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