What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4808678?

The tribunal order states: Gary Tainui and June De Thierry must pay Carters Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4808678?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $333.60 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit (Water Less Rent: $194.98 awarded to tenant; 2 X Holes In Walls, And Door Knob: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Weather Boards: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet in loung…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Insulation: $1,900.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808678?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808678?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10493624-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4808678?

The tribunal order states: Gary Tainui and June De Thierry must pay Carters Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4808678?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $333.60 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit (Water Less Rent: $194.98 awarded to tenant; 2 X Holes In Walls, And Door Knob: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Weather Boards: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet in loung…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Insulation: $1,900.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4808678?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4808678?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10493624-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32 McShane Street, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4808678 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4808678 — net $2,538.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace furnishings: Insulation	$1,900.00		Replace furnishings: Insulation
Lawns and Garden work: Weeding and replace	$350.00		Lawns and Garden work: Weeding and replace
Lawns and Garden work: Removal of green waste	$200.00		Lawns and Garden work: Removal of green waste
Cleaning: Exterior clean to clean dirt from dogs	$150.00		Cleaning: Exterior clean to clean dirt from dogs
Replace furnishings: Carpet in lounge and dining	$500.00		Replace furnishings: Carpet in lounge and dining
Rubbish removal	$300.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs: 2 x holes in walls, and door knob	$400.00		Repairs: 2 x holes in walls, and door knob
Repairs: weather boards	$400.00		Repairs: weather boards
Lock/key replacement	$333.60		Lock/key replacement
Rent credit (water less rent		$194.98	Rent credit (water less rent
Total award	$4,533.60	$194.98
Net award	$2,538.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,538.62

Order

Gary Tainui and June De Thierry must pay Carters Property Management Limited (T/A Pukeko Rental Managers) - As Agent For Kainie Hebrides $2,538.62 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (5678240-001) to Carters Property Management Limited (T/A Pukeko Rental Managers) - As Agent For Kainie Hebrides immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held 24 June 2024.
The tenancy began in May 2018. In October 2018 Carters Property Management took over the property management for the tenancy.
The house is a 3-bedroom weatherboard home estimated to be built in the late 1970’s to early 1980’s. The owners lived in the property before the tenancy began. The landlord tells me that they say that the home was freshly painted and recarpeted before the tenancy began, but Mr Carter does not know exactly when that occurred.
The tenancy ended in December 2023, after the landlord gave the tenant a 90 day notice as the landlord planned to do extensive renovation work, including reflooring the bathroom, toilet, hallways and laundry.
The tenancy ended on the 11 December 2023, but both parties agree that the tenant was given some additional time to go into the property to complete cleaning etc.
The landlord has claimed the following amounts:
In addition, the landlord claimed the cost of rekeying the property after no keys were given back.
The tenant claims: a) that they have paid too much rent for the type of property that they got- particularly over time when the condition of the house deteriorated. b) that the landlord failed to maintain the property- in particular the flooring of the property and failed to properly investigate issues with leaking at the property. c) That the landlord failed to repair a hole in the laundry allowing rats to get inside the property.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant continued to pay money into a water account after the tenancy ended. The tenant accepts that they owed rent of $398.13 as per the rent statement. The landlord provided a water ledger showing that the tenant overpaid water by $593.12. The tenant accepts that the water rates overpayment should be applied to the rent arrears leaving a balance of $194.99 credit owed to the tenant.

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.
The tenant says that it did clean the property thoroughly both inside and out. It is clear that the tenant removed most of their items from the house, and it appears that the interior of the house has been cleaned.
However, the landlord provided photographs of the outside walls of the property taken both in December and in January 2024 which show that the mud is still present where the tenant’s dog would jump up on the weatherboards. The tenant is liable of the cost of cleaning those areas.
The photographs taken of the garden and lawn area show and overgrown garden, which would have needed some time spent on it to restore it to a reasonably tidy condition. The tenant is also responsible for restoring the gardens that have been damaged by the tenant’s dogs.
The landlord is responsible for the maintenance of trees at the property. The landlord would have had to incur some cost at the end of the tenancy to prune trees and remove that waste. That is not the tenant’s responsibility.
The landlord claims that the tenant left rubbish in the shed and under the house and various items on the outside of the property. The tenant accepts that some of the rubbish left in the shed is his, but that most of the larger items belong to the owner, as it was there at the beginning of the tenancy. This is consistent with the owner’s statement in the management agreement that the owner has stored items in the garage (shed).
The landlord says that the items under the home are the tenants. The tenant says that they are not and that he first noticed them when he went under the house to try and find a leak.
There are no photographs of the shed or under the house before the tenancy began, therefore it is impossible to say what was there beforehand what belongs to the tenants beyond what the tenant accepts was put there by them. I do not consider that the volume of rubbish accepted by the tenant’s accepted to be more than a small sized skip bin.
The tenant accepts that it did not return the keys. The landlord has produced an invoice for the re-keying the property and that amount is awarded.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. The landlord did not have any insurance cover for any damage applied for.
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.
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.
I am satisfied that the tenant’s dogs caused damage to the insulation of the property, there was more than one occasion that the dogs made their way under the house and chewed on the insulation. Even after the tenant was aware of the problem, the dogs were seen by the property manager under the house having entered through the underfloor gate which had been left open. The tenant is liable for the cost of removing he old insulation and the cost of replacement insulation.
I am also satisfied that the tenant caused two holes in the walls one in a bedroom and another in another room where a doorstop had been tampered with causing the doorknob to make a hole in the wall. The tenant is liable for the cost of repair for those items. The tenant also removed a doorknob, and the tenant is liable for that cost as well.
The landlord is claiming costs for the painting of two walls in the bedroom where it says that the paint has come away from the walls. The tenant says the paint has deteriorated due to bad paintwork, it was painted over existing paint and has chipped and worn away.
I do not have any photographs of the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord tells me that the paint was new but cannot tell me when it was done. At today’s hearing I found the tenant credible, he told me plainly the condition of items at the beginning of the tenancy and accepted responsibility for items of rubbish that were left behind. He made it clear for instance that the carpet was nice and in good condition at the beginning. I did not find his evidence self- serving about the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy, and therefore I accept his statement that the paint work was badly done with cracking that had allowed the paint to come off. As such the tenant is not liable for this damage. I consider it fair wear and tear.
I am satisfied that the tenant stained the carpet in the lounge and the dining room to the extent that the carpet needed replacement. But I also note that the carpet in these areas was likely nearing the end of depreciable useful life. What compensation should be awarded.
The property manager submitted quotes for the work that it says that the tenant was liable for, it says that the tenant should pay the quoted amount. The property manager says that it has reduced the amount when it knew the quoted amount was too high.
The owner of the property had all the claimed work done by their builders/ tradespersons at the same time as the refurbishment works. The property manager tells me that the owner then had their builder extrapolate out the costs for these specific items that they say that the tenant is liable for.
The property manager is no longer acting as the property manager for the owner and therefore he does not know exactly what work has been completed, when and for what price.
When a party brings a claim to the Tribunal it is their burden to not only prove the claim on the balance of probabilities, proving the claim also includes providing the loss. This means that the landlord is expected to produce invoices for the completed work, with a sufficient breakdown of the time taken and the cost of materials.
It has now been six months since the end of the tenancy. The landlord has had enough time to obtain these documents and have this evidence available for today’s tribunal hearing.
An adjudicator determining the matter can also take into account judicial notice (see s97(5) RTA) which means that the Adjudicator can consider the amounts usually seen by the Tribunal for similar types of claims.
The problem with quoted work is that it is not in itself evidence of what has actually been lost by the landlord. That evidence is best proven by showing the Tribunal exactly what was paid for each item claimed. In the absence of evidence showing the amount that has actually been paid the quote has much less evidential weight it is in reality just that a quote, it is what someone has told another that it might cost, not what it did cost. There is no evidence of the expertise of the company giving the quote, or even if this is their usual type of work.
I am also entitled to take into account that items in the quote were significantly larger than what the property manager agreed was his quoted amounts (and which I acknowledge he reduced the amount claimed). I am left with the impression that the quote from the owners builders is over inflated, is not necessarily reflective of the actual cost incurred for these items and has no breakdown of the amount of time and materials needed to do the work.
Having considered the evidence and applying judicial notice of similar amounts awarded for damages, repairs, cleaning, rubbish removal and lawns and gardens I make the following awards: • Exterior cleaning, $150.00. The quoted amount takes into account washing all of the walls, not just the mud off the affected parts. The walls were very dirty from another substance (not caused by the tenant). The house was repainted as part of the refurbishment, and I expect that the house would have needed to be washed beforehand. The tenant had an obligation to remove the mud on the house caused by the dogs jumping up. • Lawns and gardens, the amount claimed is excessive to bring the property back to a reasonable standard. I consider the amount awarded takes into the time and machinery needed to reinstate the gardens to a reasonable condition and to reinstate the damage caused by the dogs. Mitre 10 has bags for the garden waste which is removed by waster management at a total cost of $200.00 and I consider that it would have been sufficient for all of the garden waste resulting from cleaning the bag section up. • Insulation. I accept the landlord’s claimed amount and have reduced it slightly to take into account the age of the insulation. • Holes in the walls, the amounts awarded are reflective of the usual costs seen by the Tribunal everyday for these types of awards. I also note that they were not in the areas being refurbished. Painting of those areas is also included in this award. • Carpet: the landlord has not produced any invoice showing that the carpet was actually purchased. The amount awarded takes into account similar carpet of the age for the areas sought. • Weatherboards and base boards. The landlord has not produced any invoices that show the materials and the time spent. The tenant says he has done this work before it cost him $80 in materials and 2 hours labour. I consider that an experienced tradesperson would charge more than that.
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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The tenant’s claims.
The tenant’s claims can be summarised as that he thought he paid to much for what he got. He says that the leaks in the house rotted the floor and the walls and that the house became more problematic over time.
The tenants said that he was paying too, much rent, but did not give any evidence to support that claim, such as comparable rents in the area. The landlord who has 12 similar properties in the area submitted that the rent was in fact less than average. I think that probably reflects the age, condition and location of the home.
It is up to the tenant to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof on the balance of probabilities that the rent was too high and the absence of any evidence of comparable market rents then that cannot occur, and the tenants claim that the rent was too high fails.
The tenant’s claim also could fall into a breach of the landlord failing to repair items around the home. Section 45 (1)(b) provides: The landlord shall provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
The age and type of the house means that the landlord should have anticipated that it may require more maintenance as the house got older. That being said the landlord is not responsible for latent defects, that is items that are undetected like leaks until such time as they are found and brought to the landlord ‘s attention. I am satisfied that the tenant would bring items to the landlord’s attention at inspections which happened every 3 months. I am also satisfied that the landlord generally repaired those items within a reasonable time. There were some items noted in the inspections that should have been remedied earlier such as the cracked tiles in the laundry, but I appreciate that the underlying problem had to be detected and dealt with (the leak) first.
I agree with the tenant that the house looked a bit worse for wear as the years of the tenancy wore out, but that it likely to be more because at the beginning the paint work and the carpet was newer, and the leaks had not occurred. I also note that the tenant had at times up to 8 people living in the property when the tenancy agreement only provided for a maximum of five people.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord failed to repair a hole in the laundry (caused by a previous leak) which caused rats to enter into the property. The tenant told me that he notified the landlord about the rat, and the landlord told him to bait the rat, the landlord also then repaired the hole. I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached the RTA, I consider the hole was repaired in a reasonable time.
The landlord claimed $14,352.00 it has only been awarded a small proportion of that, the tenant’s claims have failed. Therefore, I do not award either party the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4808678 — net $2,538.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace furnishings: Insulation	$1,900.00		Replace furnishings: Insulation
Lawns and Garden work: Weeding and replace	$350.00		Lawns and Garden work: Weeding and replace
Lawns and Garden work: Removal of green waste	$200.00		Lawns and Garden work: Removal of green waste
Cleaning: Exterior clean to clean dirt from dogs	$150.00		Cleaning: Exterior clean to clean dirt from dogs
Replace furnishings: Carpet in lounge and dining	$500.00		Replace furnishings: Carpet in lounge and dining
Rubbish removal	$300.00		Rubbish removal
Repairs: 2 x holes in walls, and door knob	$400.00		Repairs: 2 x holes in walls, and door knob
Repairs: weather boards	$400.00		Repairs: weather boards
Lock/key replacement	$333.60		Lock/key replacement
Rent credit (water less rent		$194.98	Rent credit (water less rent
Total award	$4,533.60	$194.98
Net award	$2,538.62
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,538.62

Order

Gary Tainui and June De Thierry must pay Carters Property Management Limited (T/A Pukeko Rental Managers) - As Agent For Kainie Hebrides $2,538.62 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 (5678240-001) to Carters Property Management Limited (T/A Pukeko Rental Managers) - As Agent For Kainie Hebrides immediately.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held 24 June 2024.
The tenancy began in May 2018. In October 2018 Carters Property Management took over the property management for the tenancy.
The house is a 3-bedroom weatherboard home estimated to be built in the late 1970’s to early 1980’s. The owners lived in the property before the tenancy began. The landlord tells me that they say that the home was freshly painted and recarpeted before the tenancy began, but Mr Carter does not know exactly when that occurred.
The tenancy ended in December 2023, after the landlord gave the tenant a 90 day notice as the landlord planned to do extensive renovation work, including reflooring the bathroom, toilet, hallways and laundry.
The tenancy ended on the 11 December 2023, but both parties agree that the tenant was given some additional time to go into the property to complete cleaning etc.
The landlord has claimed the following amounts:
In addition, the landlord claimed the cost of rekeying the property after no keys were given back.
The tenant claims: a) that they have paid too much rent for the type of property that they got- particularly over time when the condition of the house deteriorated. b) that the landlord failed to maintain the property- in particular the flooring of the property and failed to properly investigate issues with leaking at the property. c) That the landlord failed to repair a hole in the laundry allowing rats to get inside the property.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant continued to pay money into a water account after the tenancy ended. The tenant accepts that they owed rent of $398.13 as per the rent statement. The landlord provided a water ledger showing that the tenant overpaid water by $593.12. The tenant accepts that the water rates overpayment should be applied to the rent arrears leaving a balance of $194.99 credit owed to the tenant.

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.
The tenant says that it did clean the property thoroughly both inside and out. It is clear that the tenant removed most of their items from the house, and it appears that the interior of the house has been cleaned.
However, the landlord provided photographs of the outside walls of the property taken both in December and in January 2024 which show that the mud is still present where the tenant’s dog would jump up on the weatherboards. The tenant is liable of the cost of cleaning those areas.
The photographs taken of the garden and lawn area show and overgrown garden, which would have needed some time spent on it to restore it to a reasonably tidy condition. The tenant is also responsible for restoring the gardens that have been damaged by the tenant’s dogs.
The landlord is responsible for the maintenance of trees at the property. The landlord would have had to incur some cost at the end of the tenancy to prune trees and remove that waste. That is not the tenant’s responsibility.
The landlord claims that the tenant left rubbish in the shed and under the house and various items on the outside of the property. The tenant accepts that some of the rubbish left in the shed is his, but that most of the larger items belong to the owner, as it was there at the beginning of the tenancy. This is consistent with the owner’s statement in the management agreement that the owner has stored items in the garage (shed).
The landlord says that the items under the home are the tenants. The tenant says that they are not and that he first noticed them when he went under the house to try and find a leak.
There are no photographs of the shed or under the house before the tenancy began, therefore it is impossible to say what was there beforehand what belongs to the tenants beyond what the tenant accepts was put there by them. I do not consider that the volume of rubbish accepted by the tenant’s accepted to be more than a small sized skip bin.
The tenant accepts that it did not return the keys. The landlord has produced an invoice for the re-keying the property and that amount is awarded.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. The landlord did not have any insurance cover for any damage applied for.
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.
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.
I am satisfied that the tenant’s dogs caused damage to the insulation of the property, there was more than one occasion that the dogs made their way under the house and chewed on the insulation. Even after the tenant was aware of the problem, the dogs were seen by the property manager under the house having entered through the underfloor gate which had been left open. The tenant is liable for the cost of removing he old insulation and the cost of replacement insulation.
I am also satisfied that the tenant caused two holes in the walls one in a bedroom and another in another room where a doorstop had been tampered with causing the doorknob to make a hole in the wall. The tenant is liable for the cost of repair for those items. The tenant also removed a doorknob, and the tenant is liable for that cost as well.
The landlord is claiming costs for the painting of two walls in the bedroom where it says that the paint has come away from the walls. The tenant says the paint has deteriorated due to bad paintwork, it was painted over existing paint and has chipped and worn away.
I do not have any photographs of the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy. The landlord tells me that the paint was new but cannot tell me when it was done. At today’s hearing I found the tenant credible, he told me plainly the condition of items at the beginning of the tenancy and accepted responsibility for items of rubbish that were left behind. He made it clear for instance that the carpet was nice and in good condition at the beginning. I did not find his evidence self- serving about the condition of the property at the beginning of the tenancy, and therefore I accept his statement that the paint work was badly done with cracking that had allowed the paint to come off. As such the tenant is not liable for this damage. I consider it fair wear and tear.
I am satisfied that the tenant stained the carpet in the lounge and the dining room to the extent that the carpet needed replacement. But I also note that the carpet in these areas was likely nearing the end of depreciable useful life. What compensation should be awarded.
The property manager submitted quotes for the work that it says that the tenant was liable for, it says that the tenant should pay the quoted amount. The property manager says that it has reduced the amount when it knew the quoted amount was too high.
The owner of the property had all the claimed work done by their builders/ tradespersons at the same time as the refurbishment works. The property manager tells me that the owner then had their builder extrapolate out the costs for these specific items that they say that the tenant is liable for.
The property manager is no longer acting as the property manager for the owner and therefore he does not know exactly what work has been completed, when and for what price.
When a party brings a claim to the Tribunal it is their burden to not only prove the claim on the balance of probabilities, proving the claim also includes providing the loss. This means that the landlord is expected to produce invoices for the completed work, with a sufficient breakdown of the time taken and the cost of materials.
It has now been six months since the end of the tenancy. The landlord has had enough time to obtain these documents and have this evidence available for today’s tribunal hearing.
An adjudicator determining the matter can also take into account judicial notice (see s97(5) RTA) which means that the Adjudicator can consider the amounts usually seen by the Tribunal for similar types of claims.
The problem with quoted work is that it is not in itself evidence of what has actually been lost by the landlord. That evidence is best proven by showing the Tribunal exactly what was paid for each item claimed. In the absence of evidence showing the amount that has actually been paid the quote has much less evidential weight it is in reality just that a quote, it is what someone has told another that it might cost, not what it did cost. There is no evidence of the expertise of the company giving the quote, or even if this is their usual type of work.
I am also entitled to take into account that items in the quote were significantly larger than what the property manager agreed was his quoted amounts (and which I acknowledge he reduced the amount claimed). I am left with the impression that the quote from the owners builders is over inflated, is not necessarily reflective of the actual cost incurred for these items and has no breakdown of the amount of time and materials needed to do the work.
Having considered the evidence and applying judicial notice of similar amounts awarded for damages, repairs, cleaning, rubbish removal and lawns and gardens I make the following awards: • Exterior cleaning, $150.00. The quoted amount takes into account washing all of the walls, not just the mud off the affected parts. The walls were very dirty from another substance (not caused by the tenant). The house was repainted as part of the refurbishment, and I expect that the house would have needed to be washed beforehand. The tenant had an obligation to remove the mud on the house caused by the dogs jumping up. • Lawns and gardens, the amount claimed is excessive to bring the property back to a reasonable standard. I consider the amount awarded takes into the time and machinery needed to reinstate the gardens to a reasonable condition and to reinstate the damage caused by the dogs. Mitre 10 has bags for the garden waste which is removed by waster management at a total cost of $200.00 and I consider that it would have been sufficient for all of the garden waste resulting from cleaning the bag section up. • Insulation. I accept the landlord’s claimed amount and have reduced it slightly to take into account the age of the insulation. • Holes in the walls, the amounts awarded are reflective of the usual costs seen by the Tribunal everyday for these types of awards. I also note that they were not in the areas being refurbished. Painting of those areas is also included in this award. • Carpet: the landlord has not produced any invoice showing that the carpet was actually purchased. The amount awarded takes into account similar carpet of the age for the areas sought. • Weatherboards and base boards. The landlord has not produced any invoices that show the materials and the time spent. The tenant says he has done this work before it cost him $80 in materials and 2 hours labour. I consider that an experienced tradesperson would charge more than that.
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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The tenant’s claims.
The tenant’s claims can be summarised as that he thought he paid to much for what he got. He says that the leaks in the house rotted the floor and the walls and that the house became more problematic over time.
The tenants said that he was paying too, much rent, but did not give any evidence to support that claim, such as comparable rents in the area. The landlord who has 12 similar properties in the area submitted that the rent was in fact less than average. I think that probably reflects the age, condition and location of the home.
It is up to the tenant to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof on the balance of probabilities that the rent was too high and the absence of any evidence of comparable market rents then that cannot occur, and the tenants claim that the rent was too high fails.
The tenant’s claim also could fall into a breach of the landlord failing to repair items around the home. Section 45 (1)(b) provides: The landlord shall provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age and character of the premises and the period during which the premises are likely to remain habitable and available for residential purposes.
The age and type of the house means that the landlord should have anticipated that it may require more maintenance as the house got older. That being said the landlord is not responsible for latent defects, that is items that are undetected like leaks until such time as they are found and brought to the landlord ‘s attention. I am satisfied that the tenant would bring items to the landlord’s attention at inspections which happened every 3 months. I am also satisfied that the landlord generally repaired those items within a reasonable time. There were some items noted in the inspections that should have been remedied earlier such as the cracked tiles in the laundry, but I appreciate that the underlying problem had to be detected and dealt with (the leak) first.
I agree with the tenant that the house looked a bit worse for wear as the years of the tenancy wore out, but that it likely to be more because at the beginning the paint work and the carpet was newer, and the leaks had not occurred. I also note that the tenant had at times up to 8 people living in the property when the tenancy agreement only provided for a maximum of five people.
The tenant also claimed that the landlord failed to repair a hole in the laundry (caused by a previous leak) which caused rats to enter into the property. The tenant told me that he notified the landlord about the rat, and the landlord told him to bait the rat, the landlord also then repaired the hole. I am not satisfied that the landlord has breached the RTA, I consider the hole was repaired in a reasonable time.
The landlord claimed $14,352.00 it has only been awarded a small proportion of that, the tenant’s claims have failed. Therefore, I do not award either party the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808678 — Property damage at 32 McShane Street, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4808678 — Property damage at 32 McShane Street, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions