What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4819336?

The tribunal order states: Dean Robert Percival Rhodes to pay Si Xin Dai and Han Li Zhang Partnership

How much money was awarded in case 4819336?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $737.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4819336?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4819336?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10841894-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4819336?

The tribunal order states: Dean Robert Percival Rhodes to pay Si Xin Dai and Han Li Zhang Partnership

How much money was awarded in case 4819336?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $737.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4819336?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4819336?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10841894-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Rangitoto View Road, Cockle Bay, Auckland 2014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4819336 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4819336 — net $1,102.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Garage door repairs	$345.00	Repairs: Garage door repairs
Carpet replacement	$737.50	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,102.94
Bond	$6,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,102.94

Order

Dean Robert Percival Rhodes to pay Si Xin Dai and Han Li Zhang Partnership Trading as Queen St Realty. $1,102.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,000.00 (5854005-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Si Xin Dai And Han Li Zhang Partnership Trading as Queen St Realty.: $1,102.94 Dean Robert Percival Rhodes: $4,897.06
The landlords claim for keys and locksmith costs, cleaning and damage to a bathroom vanity and a laundry tub are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning:
The landlord is claiming that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord had provided an invoice for $600.00 from Triple S Limited dated 17 February 2024 for cleaning and some specific detailed photographs.
The photos are of small areas and do not give a reasonable overview of the cleanliness of the property at the end of the tenancy. However, attached to the application the landlord provided other more general photos of the house. These photos show a property that was reasonably clean and tidy.
The Tribunal has adopted the “reasonably clean and tidy standard” rather than an expectation of perfection.
The tenant said he got a professional cleaner in to do an end of tenancy clean of the whole house.
I find that the tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did remove all rubbish. Locksmith fees:
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not return the keys. However, the tenant and his adult daughter who also attended the hearing stated that they were given two keys, and two keys were returned at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said that the property manager had requested that he leave the keys in the unlocked letterbox before he left the property. The tenant did as he was asked and has no explanation if the keys were not in the letterbox.
I do not find that the landlord has proven his claim for the locksmith fees.
I am dismissing the landlords claim for cleaning and locksmith fees.

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.
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.
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Stains to the carpet in the master bedroom and lounge. -Chipped wooden frame around the garage door. -Damaged bathroom vanity and laundry tub.
The landlord has provided a few photos of the damage to the carpet and garage door frame and invoices. Garage door trim:
There is an invoice for $345.00 dated 26 March 2024 for repairs to the garage door trim. The tenant accepts that he caused damage and was prepared to pay the cost of the repair to the garage door trim.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for damage to the garage door trim. Bathroom vanity and laundry tub:
The landlord has provided photos of what he says is damage to the bathroom vanity and laundry tub. I absolutely do not accept that from the photos provided. This house is in excess of 24 years old and the vanity and laundry tub are original. The veneer around the vanity and tub are swollen, warped, and split with water damage, and old age.
I do not see evidence of damage. I see evidence of the cabinetry needed to be replaced due to the age of them.
I am dismissing the landlords claim of damage to the bathroom vanity and laundry tub. Carpet:
The landlord has provided photos of stains on the carpet in the master bedroom and the lounge. The tenant says he had the carpets professionally cleaned, but that there were a few stains in those two areas.
The landlord is seeking $8855.00 for the cost of replacing the whole house with new carpet.
This is a double storey 4-bedroom, one study, lounge, and dining area fully carpeted. I have estimated that the area in the lounge and master bedroom represent 1/6 th of the total area of the house. Therefore, the tenant at the most should only be responsible for repairs to that portion of the carpet replacement, which is $1475.83.
While I accept that it is problematic to match and patch damaged carpet, the landlord should not be put in a better position after repairs than he would have been had the damage not occurred.
It is my view that the landlord is trying to claim the full cost of replacing the entire house with new carpet at the tenant’s expense.
The damage to the carpet and the garage door is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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 on the carpet, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord stated that the owner has only owned the property for 4 years and he believes the carpet is 4 years of age. The tenant says this was clearly older carpet than 4 years and suspected that it was original carpet.
I have no proof of the actual age of the carpet, but according to the Inland Revenue Residential Rental Property Chattels depreciation list, carpets are deemed to have an “estimated useful life (years)” of 8 years.
I am adopting the depreciation list and reducing the tenant’s liability by 50% as a result.
The landlord has been partially successful on the claim for carpet. For completeness the tenant’s liability for the carpet damage is $737.50.
The bond centre is to split the bond refund to the parties as set out in paragraph 2 of the Order.
Because Si Xin Dai and Han Li Zhang Partnership Trading as Queen St Realty. has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4819336 — net $1,102.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Garage door repairs	$345.00	Repairs: Garage door repairs
Carpet replacement	$737.50	Carpet replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,102.94
Bond	$6,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,102.94

Order

Dean Robert Percival Rhodes to pay Si Xin Dai and Han Li Zhang Partnership Trading as Queen St Realty. $1,102.94 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $6,000.00 (5854005-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Si Xin Dai And Han Li Zhang Partnership Trading as Queen St Realty.: $1,102.94 Dean Robert Percival Rhodes: $4,897.06
The landlords claim for keys and locksmith costs, cleaning and damage to a bathroom vanity and a laundry tub are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning:
The landlord is claiming that the tenant did not leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord had provided an invoice for $600.00 from Triple S Limited dated 17 February 2024 for cleaning and some specific detailed photographs.
The photos are of small areas and do not give a reasonable overview of the cleanliness of the property at the end of the tenancy. However, attached to the application the landlord provided other more general photos of the house. These photos show a property that was reasonably clean and tidy.
The Tribunal has adopted the “reasonably clean and tidy standard” rather than an expectation of perfection.
The tenant said he got a professional cleaner in to do an end of tenancy clean of the whole house.
I find that the tenant did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did remove all rubbish. Locksmith fees:
The landlord claimed that the tenant did not return the keys. However, the tenant and his adult daughter who also attended the hearing stated that they were given two keys, and two keys were returned at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant said that the property manager had requested that he leave the keys in the unlocked letterbox before he left the property. The tenant did as he was asked and has no explanation if the keys were not in the letterbox.
I do not find that the landlord has proven his claim for the locksmith fees.
I am dismissing the landlords claim for cleaning and locksmith fees.

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.
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.
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Stains to the carpet in the master bedroom and lounge. -Chipped wooden frame around the garage door. -Damaged bathroom vanity and laundry tub.
The landlord has provided a few photos of the damage to the carpet and garage door frame and invoices. Garage door trim:
There is an invoice for $345.00 dated 26 March 2024 for repairs to the garage door trim. The tenant accepts that he caused damage and was prepared to pay the cost of the repair to the garage door trim.
I am satisfied that the landlord has proven his claim for damage to the garage door trim. Bathroom vanity and laundry tub:
The landlord has provided photos of what he says is damage to the bathroom vanity and laundry tub. I absolutely do not accept that from the photos provided. This house is in excess of 24 years old and the vanity and laundry tub are original. The veneer around the vanity and tub are swollen, warped, and split with water damage, and old age.
I do not see evidence of damage. I see evidence of the cabinetry needed to be replaced due to the age of them.
I am dismissing the landlords claim of damage to the bathroom vanity and laundry tub. Carpet:
The landlord has provided photos of stains on the carpet in the master bedroom and the lounge. The tenant says he had the carpets professionally cleaned, but that there were a few stains in those two areas.
The landlord is seeking $8855.00 for the cost of replacing the whole house with new carpet.
This is a double storey 4-bedroom, one study, lounge, and dining area fully carpeted. I have estimated that the area in the lounge and master bedroom represent 1/6 th of the total area of the house. Therefore, the tenant at the most should only be responsible for repairs to that portion of the carpet replacement, which is $1475.83.
While I accept that it is problematic to match and patch damaged carpet, the landlord should not be put in a better position after repairs than he would have been had the damage not occurred.
It is my view that the landlord is trying to claim the full cost of replacing the entire house with new carpet at the tenant’s expense.
The damage to the carpet and the garage door is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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 on the carpet, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord stated that the owner has only owned the property for 4 years and he believes the carpet is 4 years of age. The tenant says this was clearly older carpet than 4 years and suspected that it was original carpet.
I have no proof of the actual age of the carpet, but according to the Inland Revenue Residential Rental Property Chattels depreciation list, carpets are deemed to have an “estimated useful life (years)” of 8 years.
I am adopting the depreciation list and reducing the tenant’s liability by 50% as a result.
The landlord has been partially successful on the claim for carpet. For completeness the tenant’s liability for the carpet damage is $737.50.
The bond centre is to split the bond refund to the parties as set out in paragraph 2 of the Order.
Because Si Xin Dai and Han Li Zhang Partnership Trading as Queen St Realty. has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4819336 — Property damage at 17 Rangitoto View Road, Cockle Bay, Auckland 2014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4819336 — Property damage at 17 Rangitoto View Road, Cockle Bay, Auckland 2014

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions