What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4834537?

The tribunal order states: Jonah Tawhai and Navada Beyers must pay Prestige Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4834537?

Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $37.15 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4834537?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4834537?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10441551-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4834537?

The tribunal order states: Jonah Tawhai and Navada Beyers must pay Prestige Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4834537?

Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $10.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $37.15 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $40.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4834537?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4834537?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10441551-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Peckham Lane, Woolston, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4834537 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4834537 — net $337.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 February 2024	$37.15	Rent arrears to 5 February 2024
Lawns and garden work	$100.00	Lawns and garden work
Damaged net curtains	$10.00	Damaged net curtains
Wall repairs	$150.00	Wall repairs
Rubbish removal	$40.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$337.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$337.15

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Turnbull represented the landlords.

The landlords have applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenants accept the amount of rent claimed.

Did the tenants 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 and remove all rubbish: section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might want for a new tenant. There will often be some additional cleaning and tidying work required in between tenancies and this is considered to be an ordinary business cost.

The landlords completed the cleaning, tidying lawns and gardens and removing rubbish work themselves. They did not attend the hearing but provided an “invoice” with a brief description of the work completed. They claim $750.00 to tidy the lawns and gardens and to remove rubbish, and $450.00 to clean the premises. There was no evidence of the time they spent completing the work or the hourly rate they have charged.

I dismiss the claim for cleaning. I am satisfied that the tenants left the premises reasonably clean. I accept their evidence that they had had the carpets professionally cleaned at a cost of $190.00 and they employed a professional cleaner clean the premises costing $300.00. They provided copies of invoices in support. Moreover, the photographs provided by Ms Turnbull do not support her claim that the premises were not left reasonably clean.

Mr Tawhai and Ms Beyers said that they moved out of the premises in late December 2023 (before the expiry of the fixed term of the tenancy on 5 February 2024). They returned to mow the lawns and tidy the gardens in mid- January 2024, and they accept that the lawns would have grown between that time and the tenancy end date. I also accept that some weeds would have grown in the gardens. However, no photographs of the condition of the lawns and gardens at the end of the tenancy were provided in evidence and, as mentioned, there was insufficient evidence to support the amounts claimed by the landlords to do the work. Doing the best I can on the evidence I have I consider the sum of $150.00 reasonable compensation for the tidying of the lawns and gardens.

Ms Beyers and Mr Tawhai said that the only rubbish they left at the premises was an exercise bike in the garage. They said that the rubbish bins were full, but the rubbish was sorted into their correct bins. Thus, they only needed to be put out on the roadside for collection on the appropriate day.

Again, there was insufficient evidence provided by the landlord to support the rubbish they claim they had to remove or why it required five trips to the dump (as stated in their invoice). In particular, there were no photographs provided of the rubbish. In the circumstances I consider the sum of $40.00 reasonable compensation to dispose of the rubbish the tenants accept they left.

Are the tenants 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.

Ms Turnbull claims that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. Ripped net curtains in the lounge, dining room, kitchen and three bedrooms; b. the lounge curtain rail was bent; and c. the wallpaper in the lounge and a bedroom was ripped and had pen marks;

The landlord completed the damage repair work themselves. They claim $300.00 to replace the net curtains and $500.00 to repair and paint the walls. There was no sum claimed to repair the bent curtain rail.

I am satisfied that the damage, other than the bent curtain rail, occurred during the tenancy, is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for it. However, the tenants said that they had replaced the net curtains (and the main curtains) in the lounge in October 2023 (because they said they were mouldy) and these nets did not have any rips at the end of the tenancy. I accept their evidence. There were no photographs or other evidence provided by Ms Turnbull of the lounge curtains to support the landlords’ claim that they were ripped or required replacement. The claim to replace the lounge nets is therefore dismissed.

The central issue here is determining what is reasonable to compensate the landlords for the damage given the limited evidence provided as to costs. I also need to take into account depreciation and betterment. 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, it is necessary to consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Ms Turnbull said that the net curtains were new at the start of the tenancy (the tenancy commenced on 5 February 2021). They were therefore approximately three years old at the end of the tenancy. Net curtains are expected to last up to three years before requiring replacement. Thus, the curtains were probably near to or at the end of their useful life. In the circumstances I consider $10.00 reasonable compensation to replace the net curtains in the bedrooms, dining room and kitchen.

Mr Tawhai and Ms Beyers accept that the wallpaper in a bedroom may have been ripped and possibly had pen marks (they have two young children). They said that they cleaned the pen marks off the lounge wallpaper as best they could. Ms Turnbull was unsure of the age of the wallpaper and she did not provide evidence to support the condition of it at the tenancy commencement. Again, doing the best I can on the evidence before me I consider $150.00 reasonable to compensate the landlords for the damage to the walls.

The claim to repair the bent curtain rail is dismissed because I accept the tenants’ evidence that the curtains were difficult to pull and the rail probably bent while they were attempting to pull them over the three year tenancy. I therefore find that the damage was likely the result of fair wear and tear, or ordinary use of the premises. Moreover, there is no amount claimed or any indication of costs to repair the rail.

The landlords have been mostly unsuccessful I their claims and I therefore do not consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4834537 — net $337.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 5 February 2024	$37.15	Rent arrears to 5 February 2024
Lawns and garden work	$100.00	Lawns and garden work
Damaged net curtains	$10.00	Damaged net curtains
Wall repairs	$150.00	Wall repairs
Rubbish removal	$40.00	Rubbish removal
Net award	$337.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$337.15

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Turnbull represented the landlords.

The landlords have applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenants accept the amount of rent claimed.

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

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlords have been mostly unsuccessful I their claims and I therefore do not consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4834537 — Property damage at 8 Peckham Lane, Woolston, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4834537 — Property damage at 8 Peckham Lane, Woolston, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants 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?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions