What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4788519?

The tribunal order states: Patrick Greg and Natasha Boyte to pay Sanjay Prasad $525.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4788519?

Cleaning: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Seat: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cupboard Changes: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4788519?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4788519?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10490989-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4788519?

The tribunal order states: Patrick Greg and Natasha Boyte to pay Sanjay Prasad $525.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4788519?

Cleaning: $45.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Removal Of Seat: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cupboard Changes: $80.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4788519?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4788519?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10490989-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

501 Whakamaru Road, Tokoroa, RD 1, Tokoroa 3491 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4788519 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4788519 — net $525.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Cupboard changes	$80.00	Repairs: Cupboard changes
Removal of seat	$250.00	Removal of seat
Lock/key replacement	$150.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: Floor scratches	$45.00	Cleaning: Floor scratches
Net award	$525.00
Bond	$2,780.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$525.00

Order

Patrick Greg and Natasha Boyte to pay Sanjay Prasad $525.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 (6420485-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Sanjay Prasad: $525.00 Patrick Greg and Natasha Boyte: $2,255.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord, Mr Prasad joined by telephone conference.
The tenants filed an application for the bond and disputing the landlords claims against it.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began 10 December 2020 and ended on 17 January 2024 after the landlord put the premises on the market. The property sold in June 2024.
The landlord withdrew the claims for lawn work and rubbish removal after the tenants provided end of tenancy evidence.
The landlord withdrew the floor paint claim as it was dust from repairs.
The landlord provided one invoice for all the work that he claimed was required. This was not broken down into individual claim items.
None of the work was done as he has sold the house. He claimed that he had to reduce the price of the property due to its bad condition. No correspondence or evidence was produced supporting this.
The amounts ordered are nominal because the landlord has not completed any of the repairs and has sold the premises. I do not find that the landlord has established a loss and award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and have caused damage for which they are liable, but I am not persuaded the precise loss has been quantified.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There were some marks on the floor where a chest of drawers had been dragged. The landlord claimed for scratches to a polished floor. The photographs show white marks and the tenants said that this was paint not scratches, and these could be cleaned off. An amount for cleaning is awarded.
The tenant agreed that they did not return the keys. They said that they had stopped working during the tenancy and they had told the landlord. No evidence was provided for this. No invoice for replacement of the keys was provided as the landlord said that a friend did it for him.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: A bench seat in a room was removed. The tenants said that this was discussed with one of the owners and they were told that the owners were going to do this anyway so that the room could be used as a bedroom. The landlord disputed this. No evidence of this agreement was provided.

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.
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.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: A cupboard in a bedroom was repainted and doors removed without the landlord’s consent, and some tiles around the fireplace were broken. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
I find the damage to the cupboard as intentional. The tenant said it was broken and some drawers could not be opened so they removed all of them and painted some of it. The cupboard was old but was not restored to its original state at the end of the tenancy.
I find that the damages to the tiles was accidental. The tenants said that they had stood on them, and they cracked. The landlord agreed that he was told that they had broken early in the tenancy and that he did nothing about it. Tiles around a fireplace should be able to hold a person’s weight and there was no evidence of careless or intentional damage. This claim is dismissed.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because neither party has wholly or substantially succeeded with the claim the filing fee is not reimbursed.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
I do not consider either wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings and therefore are entitled to it by right. Having weighted up the interest of the parties versus the public interest I do not consider it justified to order suppression. I decline to make any suppression orders.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4788519 — net $525.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Cupboard changes	$80.00	Repairs: Cupboard changes
Removal of seat	$250.00	Removal of seat
Lock/key replacement	$150.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning: Floor scratches	$45.00	Cleaning: Floor scratches
Net award	$525.00
Bond	$2,780.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$525.00

Order

Patrick Greg and Natasha Boyte to pay Sanjay Prasad $525.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,780.00 (6420485-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Sanjay Prasad: $525.00 Patrick Greg and Natasha Boyte: $2,255.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord, Mr Prasad joined by telephone conference.
The tenants filed an application for the bond and disputing the landlords claims against it.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy began 10 December 2020 and ended on 17 January 2024 after the landlord put the premises on the market. The property sold in June 2024.
The landlord withdrew the claims for lawn work and rubbish removal after the tenants provided end of tenancy evidence.
The landlord withdrew the floor paint claim as it was dust from repairs.
The landlord provided one invoice for all the work that he claimed was required. This was not broken down into individual claim items.
None of the work was done as he has sold the house. He claimed that he had to reduce the price of the property due to its bad condition. No correspondence or evidence was produced supporting this.
The amounts ordered are nominal because the landlord has not completed any of the repairs and has sold the premises. I do not find that the landlord has established a loss and award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and have caused damage for which they are liable, but I am not persuaded the precise loss has been quantified.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There were some marks on the floor where a chest of drawers had been dragged. The landlord claimed for scratches to a polished floor. The photographs show white marks and the tenants said that this was paint not scratches, and these could be cleaned off. An amount for cleaning is awarded.
The tenant agreed that they did not return the keys. They said that they had stopped working during the tenancy and they had told the landlord. No evidence was provided for this. No invoice for replacement of the keys was provided as the landlord said that a friend did it for him.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: A bench seat in a room was removed. The tenants said that this was discussed with one of the owners and they were told that the owners were going to do this anyway so that the room could be used as a bedroom. The landlord disputed this. No evidence of this agreement was provided.

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.
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.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: A cupboard in a bedroom was repainted and doors removed without the landlord’s consent, and some tiles around the fireplace were broken. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
I find the damage to the cupboard as intentional. The tenant said it was broken and some drawers could not be opened so they removed all of them and painted some of it. The cupboard was old but was not restored to its original state at the end of the tenancy.
I find that the damages to the tiles was accidental. The tenants said that they had stood on them, and they cracked. The landlord agreed that he was told that they had broken early in the tenancy and that he did nothing about it. Tiles around a fireplace should be able to hold a person’s weight and there was no evidence of careless or intentional damage. This claim is dismissed.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because neither party has wholly or substantially succeeded with the claim the filing fee is not reimbursed.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
I do not consider either wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings and therefore are entitled to it by right. Having weighted up the interest of the parties versus the public interest I do not consider it justified to order suppression. I decline to make any suppression orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4788519 — Property damage at 501 Whakamaru Road, Tokoroa, RD 1, Tokoroa 3491

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4788519 — Property damage at 501 Whakamaru Road, Tokoroa, RD 1, Tokoroa 3491

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions