What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4843720?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by the landlord and

How much money was awarded in case 4843720?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4843720?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4843720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10399821-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4843720?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by the landlord and

How much money was awarded in case 4843720?

Cleaning: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.26 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4843720?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4843720?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10399821-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34A Timaru Grove, Kelson, Lower Hutt 5010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4843720 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4843720 — net $580.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$180.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$180.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$200.26	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$580.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$580.70

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by the landlord and is declined so that no suppression orders apply.
Evelyn Wendy Tawhai and Jade Maiki Reid must pay Rentcare Property Management Limited $580.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Staunton. The tenant, Ms Reid attended the hearing by teleconference. The Tribunal attempted to call Ms Tawhai for the hearing, but the call diverted to voice message. I am satisfied that she received notice of the hearing but did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation, 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 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. They produced photos taken after the tenancy ended in support of the claims. The landlord says minor cleaning of carpets and wiping down of surfaces and inside cupboards was required. The lawns were also overgrown and needed mowing and tidying.
In addition, items belonging to the tenants and others at the premises with their permission were left behind and needed to be removed.
The cleaning, rubbish removal and section tidy work was carried out by the landlord’s in-house team with the invoices issued by the landlord company trading as “BuildCare.” I have reduced the amounts sought by the landlord for cleaning and section tidy to what I consider a reasonable charge for the work. I have not awarded the amounts sought for a “health and safety fee” of $8.50 plus GST which have been charged in each of the two invoices for this work and in a third separate invoice for other work which I deal with below. It is not clear what this fee is for, why the tenant is being charged for it and why the landlord is charging the fee three times in each invoice. I have also reduced the charges for travel of $35 plus GST that appear excessive and have been charged three times for each of the landlord’s three employees attending the premises. I have awarded sums for each claim which I consider reasonable to cover the whole job and associated expenses.
Finally, the tenant did not return the keys and the amount charged to the landlord by a contractor for this work is proved.

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.
The landlord provided evidence that an inexpensive and very basic type of lampshade in the laundry was broken and had to be replaced. The replacement cost of the lampshade shown on the invoice was $8.06 plus GST. Included in the same invoice was the cost of re-hanging curtains in the laundry and in a bedroom. This work was again carried out by one of the landlord’s employees and the invoice for the work was generated by the landlord company. The landlord charged an hourly rate for its employee to change the lampshade and re-hang the curtains of $97.50 plus GST. It also charged a travel fee of $35 plus GST and a health and safety fee of $8.50 plus GST.
First, I consider that the lampshade was a very old, basic item and even if it was damaged carelessly or intentionally by the tenants during the tenancy, it should be fully depreciated for wear and tear. In calculating depreciation, I must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Therefore, I dismiss the claim for the replacement light shade.
Even had I found the tenant was responsible to compensate the landlord for the lampshade, the rate charged for the labour of $97.50 plus GST is exorbitant and unreasonable. The same rate has also been charged for re-hanging curtains. In addition, the landlord has once again charged fees for travel and health and safety. This work could have easily been completed by one of the employees who attended the premises to clean and/or tidy the section both of whom were charged out at lower rates.
This Tribunal has issued several previous decisions in which this landlord’s practice of charging excessive amounts for work has been criticised and the amounts claimed have been reduced. Once again, I emphasize that the landlord is only entitled to charge a reasonable amount for the work involved and the Tribunal will only award a reasonable amount for the work.
I am not inclined to substitute the amount charged by the landlord with a lower figure in this instance. It is for the landlord to submit a proper and reasonable account in the first place. For that reason, I dismiss the claim.
The landlord has applied for, and is entitled to, suppression of its name and identifying details if it substantially succeeds with its claim, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. See s 95A RTA. In this case, I am declining the application for suppression because the landlord’s charging methods which I have once again criticised in this decision, is a matter of public interest for future tenants dealing with this landlord. K Stirling, 30 May 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4843720 — net $580.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$180.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$180.00	Lawns and Garden work
Lock/key replacement	$200.26	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$580.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$580.70

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by the landlord and is declined so that no suppression orders apply.
Evelyn Wendy Tawhai and Jade Maiki Reid must pay Rentcare Property Management Limited $580.70 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Ms Staunton. The tenant, Ms Reid attended the hearing by teleconference. The Tribunal attempted to call Ms Tawhai for the hearing, but the call diverted to voice message. I am satisfied that she received notice of the hearing but did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation, 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 (RTA). The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) RTA. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. They produced photos taken after the tenancy ended in support of the claims. The landlord says minor cleaning of carpets and wiping down of surfaces and inside cupboards was required. The lawns were also overgrown and needed mowing and tidying.
In addition, items belonging to the tenants and others at the premises with their permission were left behind and needed to be removed.
The cleaning, rubbish removal and section tidy work was carried out by the landlord’s in-house team with the invoices issued by the landlord company trading as “BuildCare.” I have reduced the amounts sought by the landlord for cleaning and section tidy to what I consider a reasonable charge for the work. I have not awarded the amounts sought for a “health and safety fee” of $8.50 plus GST which have been charged in each of the two invoices for this work and in a third separate invoice for other work which I deal with below. It is not clear what this fee is for, why the tenant is being charged for it and why the landlord is charging the fee three times in each invoice. I have also reduced the charges for travel of $35 plus GST that appear excessive and have been charged three times for each of the landlord’s three employees attending the premises. I have awarded sums for each claim which I consider reasonable to cover the whole job and associated expenses.
Finally, the tenant did not return the keys and the amount charged to the landlord by a contractor for this work is proved.

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.
The landlord provided evidence that an inexpensive and very basic type of lampshade in the laundry was broken and had to be replaced. The replacement cost of the lampshade shown on the invoice was $8.06 plus GST. Included in the same invoice was the cost of re-hanging curtains in the laundry and in a bedroom. This work was again carried out by one of the landlord’s employees and the invoice for the work was generated by the landlord company. The landlord charged an hourly rate for its employee to change the lampshade and re-hang the curtains of $97.50 plus GST. It also charged a travel fee of $35 plus GST and a health and safety fee of $8.50 plus GST.
First, I consider that the lampshade was a very old, basic item and even if it was damaged carelessly or intentionally by the tenants during the tenancy, it should be fully depreciated for wear and tear. In calculating depreciation, I must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Therefore, I dismiss the claim for the replacement light shade.
Even had I found the tenant was responsible to compensate the landlord for the lampshade, the rate charged for the labour of $97.50 plus GST is exorbitant and unreasonable. The same rate has also been charged for re-hanging curtains. In addition, the landlord has once again charged fees for travel and health and safety. This work could have easily been completed by one of the employees who attended the premises to clean and/or tidy the section both of whom were charged out at lower rates.
This Tribunal has issued several previous decisions in which this landlord’s practice of charging excessive amounts for work has been criticised and the amounts claimed have been reduced. Once again, I emphasize that the landlord is only entitled to charge a reasonable amount for the work involved and the Tribunal will only award a reasonable amount for the work.
I am not inclined to substitute the amount charged by the landlord with a lower figure in this instance. It is for the landlord to submit a proper and reasonable account in the first place. For that reason, I dismiss the claim.
The landlord has applied for, and is entitled to, suppression of its name and identifying details if it substantially succeeds with its claim, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. See s 95A RTA. In this case, I am declining the application for suppression because the landlord’s charging methods which I have once again criticised in this decision, is a matter of public interest for future tenants dealing with this landlord. K Stirling, 30 May 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4843720 — Property damage at 34A Timaru Grove, Kelson, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4843720 — Property damage at 34A Timaru Grove, Kelson, Lower Hutt 5010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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