What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4782322?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (3494542-009) to Judith Kyle

How much money was awarded in case 4782322?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782322?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10189079-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4782322?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,560.00 (3494542-009) to Judith Kyle

How much money was awarded in case 4782322?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782322?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10189079-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

61 Waipuia Place, Greenhithe, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4782322 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants gave their evidence in Korean with the assistance of an interpreter.

The tenants made a claim for refund of the bond following the end of their tenancy on 28 October 2017.

The bond has been in dispute since the tenants moved out due because of some painting the tenants did to the walls in the lounge, bedrooms, kitchen entry and stairway landing after the landlord expressed dissatisfaction with the exit cleaning undertaken by the tenants.

The landlord’s defence to the tenants claim for refund of the bond is that the tenants damaged the walls, the damage was intentional, and the tenants are liable for the damage.

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the paint on the walls?

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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

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). 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 (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

During the hearing, the tenants accept they painted the walls without the landlord’s consent, that they painted the walls with old pain they found in the shed and the paint was so old it was no longer a good colour match to the paint on the walls.

The landlord provided photographs from its insurer’s assessor that shows the paint the tenants put on the walls stood out and did not blend with the existing paint and the walls in those areas needed to be repainted.

The landlord also provided evidence it made a claim with its insurer which was excepted, conditional on the cost of the repainting being offset by the return of the full bond to the insurer in addition to the landlord paying a $500.00 excess.

The landlord confirmed that because the bond remained in dispute, it paid for the repainting to be undertaken and did not continue with the insurance claim. The landlord also stated that it became too difficult with the language barrier to get agreement with the tenants in relation to the bond and it was easier to leave the bond in the Bond Centre, get the painting done and address the bond at some later date. Time ticked by and the landlord forgot to apply for the bond to be reimbursed to it.

The landlord provided a receipt/invoice for the $10,062.50 it paid, $5,019.75 of which was for the repainting of the internal damage done by the tenants. This proves the landlord incurred the expense it was seeking compensation for from the bond.

The tenants argued that the paint was less than pristine at the commencement of the tenancy and as such they should not be held liable for the whole cost of repairing the walls they damaged.

The landlord stated it did not require the tenants to pay for the remediation of all the damage they did. The landlord sought the equivalent of 4 weeks rent in compensation for only a portion of the total cost of repairing the damage the tenants did to the walls.

After considering all the information provided by the parties, I find that the damage to the paint on the walls in the lounge, kitchen entrance and stairwell was more than fair wear and tear and was caused by the intentional act of tenants, and not an accident, for which they are liable.

Pursuant to s 49B(3) of the RTA the tenant's liability for the damage they caused is limited to four weeks' rent, being $2,560.00

I am satisfied that given the age and condition of the house and the internal paint work at the date their tenancy commenced, this amount returns the landlord to the position it would have been in but for the intentional act of the tenants that caused the loss.

The$2,560.00 bond is to be paid immediately to the landlord. Is the landlord liable for exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond in the statutorily required timeframe?

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

During the hearing, the tenants made a claim for $1,500.00 exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge their bond within 23 working days. They produced proof that their tenancy commenced on 5 June 2016, that they paid their bond on 6 June 2026 and the Bond Centre received their bond on 25 July 2016. 23 working days from 6 June 2016 is 7 July 2016.

The landlord did not agree to me hearing this late claim as it had not been given prior notice of the claim and a chance to present a defence to it.

In addition, the claim has been made more than 12 months after the breach. Section 109(2)(a) of the RTA provide a statutory bar for claims for exemplary damages for unlawful acts made later than 12 months after the termination of the tenancy. Therefore, even if the landlord had accepted that I hear the tenants late claim, the tenants are statutorily barred from making this claim. Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenants have not been been wholly or substantially successful in their claims, I dismiss their application for reimbursement the filing fee. In all the circumstances it is fair for the cost to lay where it falls.