What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4834399?

The tribunal order states: Virginia Farrar and Dax Inman to pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited T/A

How much money was awarded in case 4834399?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Mediated Order Dated 29/04/2024: $718.66 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $328.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4834399?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4834399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10455627-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4834399?

The tribunal order states: Virginia Farrar and Dax Inman to pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited T/A

How much money was awarded in case 4834399?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Mediated Order Dated 29/04/2024: $718.66 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $328.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4834399?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4834399?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10455627-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Sulby Road, Cashmere, Christchurch 8022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4834399 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4834399 — net $1,477.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Mediated order dated 29/04/2024	$718.66	Mediated order dated 29/04/2024
Lawns and Garden work	$350.00	Lawns and Garden work
Wall/ceiling repairs	$60.00	Wall/ceiling repairs
Driveway damage	$328.00	Driveway damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,477.10
Bond	$2,740.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,477.10

Order

Virginia Farrar and Dax Inman to pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Thornton Earl Trust $1,477.10 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Mediated Order made on 29 April 2024 under this application.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,740.00 (3452772-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Holmwood Real Estate Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Thornton Earl Trust: $1,477.10 Virginia Farrar and Dax Inman: $1,262.90

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Frost and Ms Brown represented the landlord. Mr Inman represented the tenants. He attended by way of teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

The landlord claims the sum of $729.10 to tidy the lawns and gardens.
A tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). However, the obligation in section 40(1)(e) is to not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might require for a new tenant. There will often be some additional work required at the end of a tenancy and this is considered to be an ordinary business cost.
The work completed, as stated in the invoice, is to weed the front and back gardens and down the driveway; spray weedkiller to path areas and remove larger weeds; to mow and edge the lawns.
I do not consider that edging the lawns is comes within the tenants’ responsibility to leave the lawns reasonably tidy. I also accept Mr Inman’s evidence, which was supported by photographs, that there were weeds in the paths at the tenancy commencement. In the circumstances I consider the sum of $350.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for work required to bring the gardens (excluding the paths) and the lawns to a reasonably tidy standard.

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, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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 section 49B(1) of the Act.
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: Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the cost ($150.00) to repair and paint walls in the kitchen, entry and lounge, and the lounge ceiling. The Ms Brown and Mr Frost said that the kitchen and lounge walls were damaged by nails/hooks, the lounge ceiling was damaged by a hook, and there were scuff/patched marks on the entry wall. The invoice also records work being done to the bathroom walls, but no evidence was provided as to what the damage was in this room.
Mr Inman accepts the damage to the kitchen wall which he said was caused by attaching a white board to the wall. He also accepts that they put a hook in the lounge ceiling. However, he disputes the other damage claimed. He said that they did not use nails or hooks on the lounge walls and did not cause the damage claimed to the entry wall.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that the damage to the entry or the lounge walls occurred during the tenancy. I note that the pre tenancy inspection report records “scuff marks” to the walls and this could be the marks claimed.
In the circumstances I consider $60.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage accepted by Mr Inman.
The landlord also claims the cost to water blast and reseal the driveway because of damage by a large oil stain. Mr Inman accepts that his car spilled oil which he did not notice until after he had driven through it. The landlord asked Mr Inman to have it removed and Mr Inman paid the sum of $322.00 to have the stain water blasted but this apparently left the area a lighter colour to the remaining drive. The landlord therefore wants the entire driveway water blasted and this will require the concrete to be resealed. The total cost claimed for this work is $2,323.00.
The landlord has insurance for the loss claimed with a policy excess of $650.00. I therefore find that the limit of the tenants’ liability for the damage to the drive is the policy excess ($650.00).
Ms Brown claims that the damage was caused intentionally (and therefore the insurance limitation does not apply) because the damage occurred over several occasions and therefore Mr Inman has allowed a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty (parking his vehicle on the driveway knowing it would continue to leak oil).
I do not agree that the damage was caused intentionally as that term is defined (above). I accept Mr Inman’s evidence that there was a small oil leak from his vehicle a couple of days earlier, but the large spill occurred unexpectedly overnight.
I therefore find the tenants liable for the sum of $328.00 being the maximum of their liability ($650.00) less the sum already paid to have the stain removed ($322.00).
The tenants have already paid the sum of $322.00 towards the damage leaving the sum of $328.00 being the remaining balance of their liability.
The landlords have been mostly successful in their claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee.
On 29 April 2024 the parties agreed to settle some of the claims by the tenants paying to the landlords the sum of $718.66. It is appropriate to include that order into this order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4834399 — net $1,477.10 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Mediated order dated 29/04/2024	$718.66	Mediated order dated 29/04/2024
Lawns and Garden work	$350.00	Lawns and Garden work
Wall/ceiling repairs	$60.00	Wall/ceiling repairs
Driveway damage	$328.00	Driveway damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,477.10
Bond	$2,740.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,477.10

Order

Virginia Farrar and Dax Inman to pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Thornton Earl Trust $1,477.10 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Mediated Order made on 29 April 2024 under this application.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,740.00 (3452772-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Holmwood Real Estate Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Thornton Earl Trust: $1,477.10 Virginia Farrar and Dax Inman: $1,262.90

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Frost and Ms Brown represented the landlord. Mr Inman represented the tenants. He attended by way of teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

The landlord claims the sum of $729.10 to tidy the lawns and gardens.
A tenant is required to leave the premises reasonably tidy at the end of the tenancy as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). However, the obligation in section 40(1)(e) is to not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might require for a new tenant. There will often be some additional work required at the end of a tenancy and this is considered to be an ordinary business cost.
The work completed, as stated in the invoice, is to weed the front and back gardens and down the driveway; spray weedkiller to path areas and remove larger weeds; to mow and edge the lawns.
I do not consider that edging the lawns is comes within the tenants’ responsibility to leave the lawns reasonably tidy. I also accept Mr Inman’s evidence, which was supported by photographs, that there were weeds in the paths at the tenancy commencement. In the circumstances I consider the sum of $350.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for work required to bring the gardens (excluding the paths) and the lawns to a reasonably tidy standard.

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, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
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 section 49B(1) of the Act.
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: Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the cost ($150.00) to repair and paint walls in the kitchen, entry and lounge, and the lounge ceiling. The Ms Brown and Mr Frost said that the kitchen and lounge walls were damaged by nails/hooks, the lounge ceiling was damaged by a hook, and there were scuff/patched marks on the entry wall. The invoice also records work being done to the bathroom walls, but no evidence was provided as to what the damage was in this room.
Mr Inman accepts the damage to the kitchen wall which he said was caused by attaching a white board to the wall. He also accepts that they put a hook in the lounge ceiling. However, he disputes the other damage claimed. He said that they did not use nails or hooks on the lounge walls and did not cause the damage claimed to the entry wall.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that the damage to the entry or the lounge walls occurred during the tenancy. I note that the pre tenancy inspection report records “scuff marks” to the walls and this could be the marks claimed.
In the circumstances I consider $60.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage accepted by Mr Inman.
The landlord also claims the cost to water blast and reseal the driveway because of damage by a large oil stain. Mr Inman accepts that his car spilled oil which he did not notice until after he had driven through it. The landlord asked Mr Inman to have it removed and Mr Inman paid the sum of $322.00 to have the stain water blasted but this apparently left the area a lighter colour to the remaining drive. The landlord therefore wants the entire driveway water blasted and this will require the concrete to be resealed. The total cost claimed for this work is $2,323.00.
The landlord has insurance for the loss claimed with a policy excess of $650.00. I therefore find that the limit of the tenants’ liability for the damage to the drive is the policy excess ($650.00).
Ms Brown claims that the damage was caused intentionally (and therefore the insurance limitation does not apply) because the damage occurred over several occasions and therefore Mr Inman has allowed a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty (parking his vehicle on the driveway knowing it would continue to leak oil).
I do not agree that the damage was caused intentionally as that term is defined (above). I accept Mr Inman’s evidence that there was a small oil leak from his vehicle a couple of days earlier, but the large spill occurred unexpectedly overnight.
I therefore find the tenants liable for the sum of $328.00 being the maximum of their liability ($650.00) less the sum already paid to have the stain removed ($322.00).
The tenants have already paid the sum of $322.00 towards the damage leaving the sum of $328.00 being the remaining balance of their liability.
The landlords have been mostly successful in their claims, and I consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee.
On 29 April 2024 the parties agreed to settle some of the claims by the tenants paying to the landlords the sum of $718.66. It is appropriate to include that order into this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4834399 — Property damage at 6 Sulby Road, Cashmere, Christchurch 8022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4834399 — Property damage at 6 Sulby Road, Cashmere, Christchurch 8022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants 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 tenants 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