What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4790997?

The tribunal order states: Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Gobind Singh and Guruparkash Singh Sran must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4790997?

Cleaning: $510.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $72.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $891.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $843.15 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $64.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $224.00 awarded to landlord; Shed Window: $145.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4790997?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4790997?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10058799-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4790997?

The tribunal order states: Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Gobind Singh and Guruparkash Singh Sran must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4790997?

Cleaning: $510.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $72.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $891.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $843.15 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $64.29 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $224.00 awarded to landlord; Shed Window: $145.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4790997?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4790997?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10058799-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Hutcheson Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4790997 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4790997 — net $1,465.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 November 2023	$64.29	Rent arrears to 25 November 2023
Damage to laundry wall, ceiling tile and burn marks	$891.25	Damage to laundry wall, ceiling tile and burn marks
Cladding damage	$843.15	Cladding damage
Shed window	$145.13	Shed window
Cleaning	$510.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$224.00	Rubbish removal
Light bulbs	$72.45	Light bulbs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,465.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,465.71

Order

Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Gobind Singh and Guruparkash Singh Sran must pay Fraser Flynn Limited as Agent for Christian Ward $1,465.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,305.00 (3214845-003) to Fraser Flynn Limited as Agent for Christian Ward immediately.

Reasons

Mr Fraser attended the hearing for the landlord. Mr Singh and Mr Sran attended for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent
The tenancy ended on 25 November 2023. The parties agreed that there rent arrears in the sum of $64.29 at that date. Law Relating to the Landlord’s Other Claims
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.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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.
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. Claims
The landlord withdrew the claims for rubbish removal (save for the rubbish left on the front verge) and the claim for a damaged heat pump overflow pipe. The tenants disputed the remaining claims. Interior Damage
The landlord claimed for damage consisting of burn marks on the heat pump, ceiling tile damage, damage to the bathroom ceiling and laundry wall damage.
Mr Fraser had the disadvantage of having taken over the management of the tenancy only recently, so he was not familiar with the condition of premises at the beginning and throughout the tenancy. The previous agent provided an ingoing condition report and Mr Fraser proved an outgoing report, both with photographs.
The landlord relies on an invoice in the sum of $1,005 plus GST. It is broken down into the four areas of damage described above.
After considering the reports and hearing from the parties I am satisfied that the laundry wall damage occurred during the tenancy and that it exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage and the sum of $350 claim for the repair is reasonable.
I am also satisfied that the tenants are liable for the burn marks on the internal heat pump unit. There is no description of the repair in the invoice, and it is not obvious what the repair would involve. Possibly parts of the heat pump required replacing. The cost claimed is $180 and I accept that is also reasonable.
The tenants are liable for ceiling tile damage as well. It is difficult to conceive of the repair other than replacing the tile. The cost claimed for the repair is $245 which, whilst it appears high, is not so obviously excessive that it should be disallowed. I therefore allow it.
The ceiling paint damage appears to be peeling paint that is likely to have occurred over time. I do not accept that it is the result of the tenants’ poorly ventilating the bathroom. There is no evidence to support that. I regard the damage as fair wear and tear. The claim for $230 is therefore dismissed.
The outcome for this claim is therefore that I award $891.25 being $775 plus GST. Exterior Cladding
The outgoing photographs show damage to two areas of the outside cladding beside the driveway for the premises. There is an estimate in the sum of $1,099.76 to replace three damaged boards.
The tenants argued that the boards were damaged before the tenancy started or were damaged during the tenancy by weather. I have carefully considered the relevant photographs and I do not agree. There is no evidence of damage in the ingoing photographs and no mention of damage on the ingoing report. The damage looks more like impact damage than weather damage.
The landlord accepts that it is possible that one of the boards was damaged previously and so the claim is for 2/3 of the cost. The tenants are liable for the damage and so I have awarded the sum as claimed. Shed Window
The tenants raised the same argument in relation to the damage to the shed window. There is a strangely neat circular hole in the window shown in the outgoing photographs.
Again, I have studied the ingoing photographs carefully and I am satisfied that there is no hole shown in them. Therefore, the damage must have occurred during the tenancy and the tenants are liable for it. I have awarded the $145.13 claimed and supported by a quotation. Lawn Mowing
This relates to the berm in front of the premises. I do not regard that as part of the premises. Most people do keep their berm tidy, but the tenants were not obliged to do so. This claim is therefore dismissed. Stove Repair
The landlord’s evidence did not prove that the problem with the stove was caused by any careless or intentional damage by the tenants. The tenants complained to the previous property manager in 2022 that despite being repaired, it was not working. The property manager responded by asserting that the electrician sent to look at it advised that the cause was the tenants pots and pans which were too heavy for the elements.
That is an allegation that I have not encountered before. The landlord did not produce any evidence of the size and weight of the tenants’ pots and pans and without that I accept the tenants’ evidence that their pots and pans were not of such a swingeing size and weight that it was careless to put them on the stove. This claim is therefore dismissed. Cleaning
I am satisfied from the end of tenancy photographs that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean condition. The tenants said that the premises have been renovated and therefore cleaning was not necessary.
Mr Fraser said that the landlord had not contemplated extensive renovation when the tenancy ended and so they were cleaned as usual.
I accept what Mr Fraser says. In any case, I would not accept that just because premises are to be renovated, that they do necessarily need to be cleaned. I find the cost of cleaning claimed by the landlord reasonable and so I have awarded it. Rubbish Removal
The tenants accept that they left some unwanted furniture on the footpath at the front of the premises. The landlord removed it and claims the cost of doing so.
The tenants argued that it was reasonable to leave the furniture there because they expected someone would want it and remove it. They said that it was the sort of thing that an Eco store would have accepted.
If that is correct, it begs the question, why did the tenants not take it to the Eco store? The Act requires tenants to remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy and these tenants did not do so. It was perfectly reasonable for the landlord, finding the furniture left outside the premises, to remove it. I have therefore awarded the cost of removing and dumping it. Lightbulbs
The photographs show some lights not working either due to missing or failed lightbulbs. I have therefore awarded the cost of replacing them as claimed. Heat Pump Cleaning/Servicing
The landlord claims $115 for “heat pump cleaning of oil”. I accept the tenants’ evidence that the heat pump was not serviced or cleaning during the tenancy and therefore this something that the landlord would need to do in any case. I therefore dismiss the claim. Filing Fee
The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have awarded the filing fee. Bond
The total award exceeds the bond and so I have ordered the bond to be paid to the landlord. Result
The tenants must pay the remaining liability to the landlord immediately.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4790997 — net $1,465.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 November 2023	$64.29	Rent arrears to 25 November 2023
Damage to laundry wall, ceiling tile and burn marks	$891.25	Damage to laundry wall, ceiling tile and burn marks
Cladding damage	$843.15	Cladding damage
Shed window	$145.13	Shed window
Cleaning	$510.00	Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$224.00	Rubbish removal
Light bulbs	$72.45	Light bulbs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,465.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,465.71

Order

Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Gobind Singh and Guruparkash Singh Sran must pay Fraser Flynn Limited as Agent for Christian Ward $1,465.71 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,305.00 (3214845-003) to Fraser Flynn Limited as Agent for Christian Ward immediately.

Reasons

Mr Fraser attended the hearing for the landlord. Mr Singh and Mr Sran attended for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent
The tenancy ended on 25 November 2023. The parties agreed that there rent arrears in the sum of $64.29 at that date. Law Relating to the Landlord’s Other Claims
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.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
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).
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.
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. Claims
The landlord withdrew the claims for rubbish removal (save for the rubbish left on the front verge) and the claim for a damaged heat pump overflow pipe. The tenants disputed the remaining claims. Interior Damage
The landlord claimed for damage consisting of burn marks on the heat pump, ceiling tile damage, damage to the bathroom ceiling and laundry wall damage.
Mr Fraser had the disadvantage of having taken over the management of the tenancy only recently, so he was not familiar with the condition of premises at the beginning and throughout the tenancy. The previous agent provided an ingoing condition report and Mr Fraser proved an outgoing report, both with photographs.
The landlord relies on an invoice in the sum of $1,005 plus GST. It is broken down into the four areas of damage described above.
After considering the reports and hearing from the parties I am satisfied that the laundry wall damage occurred during the tenancy and that it exceeds fair wear and tear. The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage and the sum of $350 claim for the repair is reasonable.
I am also satisfied that the tenants are liable for the burn marks on the internal heat pump unit. There is no description of the repair in the invoice, and it is not obvious what the repair would involve. Possibly parts of the heat pump required replacing. The cost claimed is $180 and I accept that is also reasonable.
The tenants are liable for ceiling tile damage as well. It is difficult to conceive of the repair other than replacing the tile. The cost claimed for the repair is $245 which, whilst it appears high, is not so obviously excessive that it should be disallowed. I therefore allow it.
The ceiling paint damage appears to be peeling paint that is likely to have occurred over time. I do not accept that it is the result of the tenants’ poorly ventilating the bathroom. There is no evidence to support that. I regard the damage as fair wear and tear. The claim for $230 is therefore dismissed.
The outcome for this claim is therefore that I award $891.25 being $775 plus GST. Exterior Cladding
The outgoing photographs show damage to two areas of the outside cladding beside the driveway for the premises. There is an estimate in the sum of $1,099.76 to replace three damaged boards.
The tenants argued that the boards were damaged before the tenancy started or were damaged during the tenancy by weather. I have carefully considered the relevant photographs and I do not agree. There is no evidence of damage in the ingoing photographs and no mention of damage on the ingoing report. The damage looks more like impact damage than weather damage.
The landlord accepts that it is possible that one of the boards was damaged previously and so the claim is for 2/3 of the cost. The tenants are liable for the damage and so I have awarded the sum as claimed. Shed Window
The tenants raised the same argument in relation to the damage to the shed window. There is a strangely neat circular hole in the window shown in the outgoing photographs.
Again, I have studied the ingoing photographs carefully and I am satisfied that there is no hole shown in them. Therefore, the damage must have occurred during the tenancy and the tenants are liable for it. I have awarded the $145.13 claimed and supported by a quotation. Lawn Mowing
This relates to the berm in front of the premises. I do not regard that as part of the premises. Most people do keep their berm tidy, but the tenants were not obliged to do so. This claim is therefore dismissed. Stove Repair
The landlord’s evidence did not prove that the problem with the stove was caused by any careless or intentional damage by the tenants. The tenants complained to the previous property manager in 2022 that despite being repaired, it was not working. The property manager responded by asserting that the electrician sent to look at it advised that the cause was the tenants pots and pans which were too heavy for the elements.
That is an allegation that I have not encountered before. The landlord did not produce any evidence of the size and weight of the tenants’ pots and pans and without that I accept the tenants’ evidence that their pots and pans were not of such a swingeing size and weight that it was careless to put them on the stove. This claim is therefore dismissed. Cleaning
I am satisfied from the end of tenancy photographs that the premises were not left in a reasonably clean condition. The tenants said that the premises have been renovated and therefore cleaning was not necessary.
Mr Fraser said that the landlord had not contemplated extensive renovation when the tenancy ended and so they were cleaned as usual.
I accept what Mr Fraser says. In any case, I would not accept that just because premises are to be renovated, that they do necessarily need to be cleaned. I find the cost of cleaning claimed by the landlord reasonable and so I have awarded it. Rubbish Removal
The tenants accept that they left some unwanted furniture on the footpath at the front of the premises. The landlord removed it and claims the cost of doing so.
The tenants argued that it was reasonable to leave the furniture there because they expected someone would want it and remove it. They said that it was the sort of thing that an Eco store would have accepted.
If that is correct, it begs the question, why did the tenants not take it to the Eco store? The Act requires tenants to remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy and these tenants did not do so. It was perfectly reasonable for the landlord, finding the furniture left outside the premises, to remove it. I have therefore awarded the cost of removing and dumping it. Lightbulbs
The photographs show some lights not working either due to missing or failed lightbulbs. I have therefore awarded the cost of replacing them as claimed. Heat Pump Cleaning/Servicing
The landlord claims $115 for “heat pump cleaning of oil”. I accept the tenants’ evidence that the heat pump was not serviced or cleaning during the tenancy and therefore this something that the landlord would need to do in any case. I therefore dismiss the claim. Filing Fee
The landlord has been substantially successful and so I have awarded the filing fee. Bond
The total award exceeds the bond and so I have ordered the bond to be paid to the landlord. Result
The tenants must pay the remaining liability to the landlord immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4790997 — Property damage at 5 Hutcheson Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4790997 — Property damage at 5 Hutcheson Street, Sydenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions