What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4785748?

The tribunal order states: Ashika Devi must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Mahesh Govind

How much money was awarded in case 4785748?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4785748 D…: $1,115.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4785748?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4785748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10450692-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4785748?

The tribunal order states: Ashika Devi must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Mahesh Govind

How much money was awarded in case 4785748?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4785748 D…: $1,115.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4785748?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4785748?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10450692-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 8 Parera Place, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4785748 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4785748 — net $1,135.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4785748 dated 15/05/2024	$1,115.50	Previous order application 4785748 dated 15/05/2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,135.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,135.94

Order

Ashika Devi must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Mahesh Govind (Ma Investments Limited) $1,135.94 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 15 May 2024 under the same application number (4785748).
The landlord’s claims for compensation for key/lock replacement and damage to the ceiling are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 May 2024. Ms Gemmell appeared for the landlord. An interim order was issued on 15 May 2024 (under the same application number 4785748) awarding the landlord compensation of $1,115.50 for cleaning and rubbish removal costs. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The hearing was adjourned part-heard and concluded on the papers. A timetable for the exchange of evidence and submissions was set out in the order. As there was a delay in the filing of the landlord’s evidence, additional time was given to the tenant to provide written comments in response. No further comments were received from the tenant and the hearing concluded on 7 June 2024. Background
In the earlier order it was noted that this tenancy began on 27 December 2021 and ended on 19 December 2023 following an order of the Tribunal terminating the tenancy. The end date of the tenancy was agreed by both parties at the hearing. The landlord has subsequently indicated that the tenancy ended on 18 December 2023. The bond is no longer held at the Bond Centre, having been paid to the landlord for rent arrears.
The balance of the landlord’s claims, for the changing of the locks/keys and the cost of repainting the bathroom ceiling, are considered below. Locks and keys
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord claims $592.85 for changing the locks. At the hearing, the landlord accepted that the keys were returned at the end of the tenancy, on 19 December 2023, at 5pm. However, the landlord states the locks had to be changed, as the tenancy ended via termination by the Tribunal. This was in accordance with Barfoot and Thompson’s policy, since there was no guarantee that additional keys were not cut.
The landlord has subsequently stated, in an email dated 30 May 2024 (after the hearing) that the tenancy ended the day before, and the tenant was still at the premises (with her belongings), so a locksmith was arranged. The relevant Tribunal order has been provided. This evidence was not before the Tribunal at the hearing.
In her evidence at the hearing the tenant disputed the claim for changing of locks and keys. She confirmed returning all keys given to her by the landlord and denied making additional copies of them.
In this case, the evidence at the hearing indicated that the tenant had complied with her obligations under the RTA by returning the keys to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. The landlord wrote, in its application to the Tribunal and confirmed at the hearing, that the tenancy ended on 19 December 2023. At the hearing the landlord accepted that the keys were received at 5pm on 19 December 2023. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage to the ceiling. To be successful, 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 RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies.
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) of the 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) of the 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) of the RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

Is the tenant responsible for the ceiling damage?

The landlord claims the tenant is liable for the cost of repainting the bathroom ceiling and seeks $460.00 in compensation, having produced the relevant invoice. The landlord states the need for repainting was because the tenant had used the shower shortly after the painting was completed, in June 2022, causing the paint to peel off.
In the email of 30 May 2024, the landlord advised that they had contacted the painting company who undertook the work in June 2022. Their advice for all tenants was to wait 24 hours to allow the paint to dry before using the shower.
In this case the photographic and documentary evidence produced by the landlord establishes that the bathroom ceiling was painted in June 2022, and this began peeling soon afterwards. Therefore, the evidence of damage to the ceiling during the tenancy has been established.
However, there are differing accounts of the advice given to the tenant once the painting was completed. The tenant is clear, in her evidence at the hearing, that the painting was completed in the early afternoon, and the painter had told her not to use the shower for the rest of the day. She was also told she could use the shower in the morning on the following day, which she did. She noticed the paint was peeling off one week later. She informed the landlord, who came and took photographs. She was never asked to pay for the re-painting of the ceiling at the time.
In this case the tenant’s evidence suggests that she had complied with the instructions given to her at the time the painting was undertaken. Therefore, it cannot be said that she deliberately or carelessly caused the damage to the ceiling. The landlord’s email does not establish that the general advice to wait 24 hours was given to the tenant, since there is no evidence from the painter who attended. Even if that was the advice given on the day, it is possible that the tenant misunderstood, in which case it would be accidental rather than careless damage.
In situations such as this, where the tenant has caused damage, but it is unintentional damage, and it has not been shown to be careless damage, the tenant will not be liable. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for compensation for re-painting of the ceiling is dismissed. Filing fee
As the landlord has been successful with its earlier claims, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4785748 — net $1,135.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4785748 dated 15/05/2024	$1,115.50	Previous order application 4785748 dated 15/05/2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,135.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,135.94

Order

Ashika Devi must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agent for Mahesh Govind (Ma Investments Limited) $1,135.94 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 15 May 2024 under the same application number (4785748).
The landlord’s claims for compensation for key/lock replacement and damage to the ceiling are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 14 May 2024. Ms Gemmell appeared for the landlord. An interim order was issued on 15 May 2024 (under the same application number 4785748) awarding the landlord compensation of $1,115.50 for cleaning and rubbish removal costs. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
The hearing was adjourned part-heard and concluded on the papers. A timetable for the exchange of evidence and submissions was set out in the order. As there was a delay in the filing of the landlord’s evidence, additional time was given to the tenant to provide written comments in response. No further comments were received from the tenant and the hearing concluded on 7 June 2024. Background
In the earlier order it was noted that this tenancy began on 27 December 2021 and ended on 19 December 2023 following an order of the Tribunal terminating the tenancy. The end date of the tenancy was agreed by both parties at the hearing. The landlord has subsequently indicated that the tenancy ended on 18 December 2023. The bond is no longer held at the Bond Centre, having been paid to the landlord for rent arrears.
The balance of the landlord’s claims, for the changing of the locks/keys and the cost of repainting the bathroom ceiling, are considered below. Locks and keys
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord claims $592.85 for changing the locks. At the hearing, the landlord accepted that the keys were returned at the end of the tenancy, on 19 December 2023, at 5pm. However, the landlord states the locks had to be changed, as the tenancy ended via termination by the Tribunal. This was in accordance with Barfoot and Thompson’s policy, since there was no guarantee that additional keys were not cut.
The landlord has subsequently stated, in an email dated 30 May 2024 (after the hearing) that the tenancy ended the day before, and the tenant was still at the premises (with her belongings), so a locksmith was arranged. The relevant Tribunal order has been provided. This evidence was not before the Tribunal at the hearing.
In her evidence at the hearing the tenant disputed the claim for changing of locks and keys. She confirmed returning all keys given to her by the landlord and denied making additional copies of them.
In this case, the evidence at the hearing indicated that the tenant had complied with her obligations under the RTA by returning the keys to the landlord at the end of the tenancy. The landlord wrote, in its application to the Tribunal and confirmed at the hearing, that the tenancy ended on 19 December 2023. At the hearing the landlord accepted that the keys were received at 5pm on 19 December 2023. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage to the ceiling. To be successful, 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 RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies.
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) of the 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) of the 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) of the RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

Is the tenant responsible for the ceiling damage?

The landlord claims the tenant is liable for the cost of repainting the bathroom ceiling and seeks $460.00 in compensation, having produced the relevant invoice. The landlord states the need for repainting was because the tenant had used the shower shortly after the painting was completed, in June 2022, causing the paint to peel off.
In the email of 30 May 2024, the landlord advised that they had contacted the painting company who undertook the work in June 2022. Their advice for all tenants was to wait 24 hours to allow the paint to dry before using the shower.
In this case the photographic and documentary evidence produced by the landlord establishes that the bathroom ceiling was painted in June 2022, and this began peeling soon afterwards. Therefore, the evidence of damage to the ceiling during the tenancy has been established.
However, there are differing accounts of the advice given to the tenant once the painting was completed. The tenant is clear, in her evidence at the hearing, that the painting was completed in the early afternoon, and the painter had told her not to use the shower for the rest of the day. She was also told she could use the shower in the morning on the following day, which she did. She noticed the paint was peeling off one week later. She informed the landlord, who came and took photographs. She was never asked to pay for the re-painting of the ceiling at the time.
In this case the tenant’s evidence suggests that she had complied with the instructions given to her at the time the painting was undertaken. Therefore, it cannot be said that she deliberately or carelessly caused the damage to the ceiling. The landlord’s email does not establish that the general advice to wait 24 hours was given to the tenant, since there is no evidence from the painter who attended. Even if that was the advice given on the day, it is possible that the tenant misunderstood, in which case it would be accidental rather than careless damage.
In situations such as this, where the tenant has caused damage, but it is unintentional damage, and it has not been shown to be careless damage, the tenant will not be liable. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for compensation for re-painting of the ceiling is dismissed. Filing fee
As the landlord has been successful with its earlier claims, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4785748 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 8 Parera Place, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4785748 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 8 Parera Place, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the ceiling damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the ceiling damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions