How much money was awarded in case 4834850?

Cleaning: $362.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $101.34 awarded to landlord; Curtain Rails/Hooks: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Dining Room Ceiling: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Garden: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4834850?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4834850?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10519110-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4834850?

Cleaning: $362.25 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $101.34 awarded to landlord; Curtain Rails/Hooks: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Dining Room Ceiling: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Garden: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4834850?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4834850?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10519110-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 The Tors, Heathcote Valley, Christchurch 8022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4834850 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4834850?

The tribunal order states: Joel Everson and Sophie Everson to pay Sinclair Property Group Limited as

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4834850 — net $1,751.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$362.25	Cleaning
Cleaning: Kitchen Blind	$138.00	Cleaning: Kitchen Blind
Window repairs	$101.34	Window repairs
Repairs: Dining Room Ceiling	$600.00	Repairs: Dining Room Ceiling
Repairs: Curtain Rails/Hooks	$200.00	Repairs: Curtain Rails/Hooks
Repairs: Garden	$350.00	Repairs: Garden
Net award	$1,751.59
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,751.59

Joel Everson and Sophie Everson to pay Sinclair Property Group Limited as agent for Terry & Vicky Saltness $1,751.59 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5508953-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Sinclair Property Group Limited: $1,751.59 Joel Everson and Sophie Everson: $648.41

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s total claims are over $10,000.

The landlord has the onus of proving its claims to the required civil standard, on the balance of probabilities.

The tenants have applied for refund of the bond.

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 landlord claims that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not return a garage door remote opener.

The landlord provided photographs and invoices to support its claims. The tenants had engaged a professional cleaner to go through the property. That cleaner had missed areas, such as inside kitchen cupboards. The photographs establish that additional cleaning was required. I award the cost of general cleaning and cleaning a kitchen blind.

The landlord also claimed carpet cleaning. There is no general requirement for carpets to be cleaned at the end of a tenancy, only that the carpets be left reasonably clean. Often, vacuuming will suffice. The evidence did not establish that it was more likely than not that the carpets had to be cleaned at the end of the tenancy. That claim is dismissed.

The landlord also claimed the cost of a replacement garage door opener. The tenants said that they left the opener on the kitchen bench. None of the keys were returned to the property manager, they were all left for the owner (who lived nearby). I did not hear evidence from the owner. The claim for a replacement garage door opener was not established. It is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed that a lot of damage had occurred during the tenancy. The most extensive claim was for repainting whole rooms and the garage. Many of the claims were for very modest or insignificant issues. See Powell v Young [2014] NZTT, North Shore 1074

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.

The tenants claim that the alleged damage is fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability: See section 49A (2) RTA. Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.

Under section 49B (8)(a)(i), the onus is on the landlord to establish that the damage is not fair wear and tear. See also Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94, 30 January 1996, where the judge noted: “Mere use of the premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration in condition...[W]here a landlord proves the existence of damage, the landlord should also assume a burden of proof to exclude fair wear and tear. If a tenant raises a plausible explanation that points to wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”

Where the damage (which is more than fair wear and tear) 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 (which is more than fair wear and tear) 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.

The landlord claimed that extensive paint damage occurred during the tenancy to the extent that entire rooms had to be repainted. The claim was for $6,882.10.

The property was built in approximately 2009. The interior had not been repainted since then. The paint work was 15 years old at the end of the tenancy. The in-going inspection report refers to wear and tear on painted surfaces.

The tenant took exception to the photographs provided by the landlord. They showed various surfaces after filler had been applied but before repainting. Despite the tenant’s concerns, the photographs actually show the “damage” claimed is consistent with the wear and tear to be expected on a painted surface, particularly one that is 15 years old. The damage was chips and bumps, not substantial holes. The landlord could not identify with any certainty which chips were caused by these tenants, and even if they could, the damage remains fair wear and tear.

Even if the damage was more than fair wear and tear, the claim was cumulative, for all painting. So, should have been limited to four times the weekly rent; a maximum of $2,600.

Finally, in relation to the painting, if liability had been established the award would have nominal having regard to betterment and depreciation. I accept the tenant’s submission that it seems the landlord, having done no painting for 15 years, was seeking to refresh the property for sale, at the tenant’s cost.

The painting claim is dismissed, except in relation to a patch above the dining table. One of the tenants acknowledged that the damage occurred when he was lifting a chair over the table. That damage was carelessly caused. I award compensation of $600.

Other items claimed included a hinge and bi-fold roller to the pantry, a gate, fence paling, soap dispenser, tightening bolts to a clothesline, replacement plants. It is for the landlord to prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.

Mr Sinclair’s approach (for the landlord) was to argue that many of the items were not referred to on the ingoing inspection report, so must have occurred during the tenancy. That does not necessarily follow. Many of the items claimed were so modest, that they may not have been referred to on an in- going report. See also Powell v Young [2014] NZTT, North Shore 1074 regarding claims for damage which is de minimis or trifling.

The tenants also provided evidence of damage existing at the start of the tenancy. For example, in relation to the gate and a ripped curtain.

Of the items claimed, the landlord established that it is more likely than not that some window catches, and curtain rails were damaged during the tenancy and are more than fair wear and tear. I award $101.34 (as claimed) for the window catches and $200 for some repair to curtain rails.

The landlord also claimed for replacement plants. It appears that a number of plants died in one area of the garden. This claim is marginal, plants can die even if well cared for. However, given the number which died in a concentrated location, I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. I award $350.00 for garden repairs having regard to the area damaged, along one side of the house.

Of the other items, the landlord did not establish that damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The claims are dismissed.

As both parties were partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4834850 — net $1,751.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$362.25	Cleaning
Cleaning: Kitchen Blind	$138.00	Cleaning: Kitchen Blind
Window repairs	$101.34	Window repairs
Repairs: Dining Room Ceiling	$600.00	Repairs: Dining Room Ceiling
Repairs: Curtain Rails/Hooks	$200.00	Repairs: Curtain Rails/Hooks
Repairs: Garden	$350.00	Repairs: Garden
Net award	$1,751.59
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,751.59

Joel Everson and Sophie Everson to pay Sinclair Property Group Limited as agent for Terry & Vicky Saltness $1,751.59 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5508953-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Sinclair Property Group Limited: $1,751.59 Joel Everson and Sophie Everson: $648.41

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s total claims are over $10,000.

The landlord has the onus of proving its claims to the required civil standard, on the balance of probabilities.

The tenants have applied for refund of the bond.

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

The landlord claims that tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not return a garage door remote opener.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed that extensive paint damage occurred during the tenancy to the extent that entire rooms had to be repainted. The claim was for $6,882.10.

Even if the damage was more than fair wear and tear, the claim was cumulative, for all painting. So, should have been limited to four times the weekly rent; a maximum of $2,600.

The tenants also provided evidence of damage existing at the start of the tenancy. For example, in relation to the gate and a ripped curtain.

Of the other items, the landlord did not establish that damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The claims are dismissed.

As both parties were partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4834850 — Property damage at 16 The Tors, Heathcote Valley, Christchurch 8022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4834850 — Property damage at 16 The Tors, Heathcote Valley, Christchurch 8022

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