What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4847920?

The tribunal order states: Michael Adam Steer and Ziqian Rod Tian to pay City Sales Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4847920?

Painting: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4847920?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4847920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10660173-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4847920?

The tribunal order states: Michael Adam Steer and Ziqian Rod Tian to pay City Sales Limited As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 4847920?

Painting: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4847920?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4847920?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10660173-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 21 Day Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4847920 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4847920 — net $600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Painting	$600.00	Repairs: Painting
Net award	$600.00
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$600.00

Michael Adam Steer and Ziqian Rod Tian to pay City Sales Limited As Agent For Perera $600.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (3314045-019) immediately apportioned as follows: City Sales Limited As Agent For Perera: $600.00 Michael Adam Steer and Ziqian Rod Tian: $1,720.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.

Before the tenancy ended there were issues between the parties in relation to marketing of the premises for sale. The tenant did not agree to the holding of Open Homes while still accommodating access for prospective buyers. From the email evidence produced it seems that the landlord was not happy with the tenant’s stance even though the tenant is not required to agree to Open Homes. The relationship between the parties seems to have deteriorated on this issue.

When the tenancy ended the tenant asked to be present at the exit inspection and while initially denied the tenant happened to be in the building when the Property Manager attended for the inspection.

The tenant says that there was no mention of any damage during the inspection. It was only when the tenant enquired about release of the bond that the tenant was told that he would not be getting his bond back because the premises needed to be painted.

The tenant had hung pictures on the walls in some of the rooms of the premises. The tenant says that a previous Property Manager had given verbal permission for this. It seems that there was no issue raised at any time by the landlord in relation to the pictures on the wall.

The landlord produced photographs from after the tenancy ended showing many small wall holes in several rooms.

When the tenant removed the pictures, the holes were filled by the tenant. The tenant did not paint the filled holes. The tenant did offer to paint the holes when the issue was raised but the landlord did not allow the tenant to carry out the work. Instead, the landlord employed a painting company to paint the walls in the premises.

The landlord has produced an invoice dated 13 February 2024 for $3,047.50. In the description the invoice states “sand all filler, spot prime all filler, sand all interior walls ready for 2 coats of Resene Paint”.

It was agreed at the hearing that not all the walls required painting but the invoice states that all interior walls were painted.

The tenant has raised the issue of the cost of the paint and materials and the amount claimed for the labour. I agree that the amount of the invoice is more than would be a reasonable amount for the painting required. Instead, I have allowed $200.00 for paint and materials and $400.00 for eight hours work at $50.00 per hour.

I have reduced the invoice for the painting after taking account of the evidence submitted including the following: (a) The requirement for the tenant, on or before the expiry of the tenancy, to return the premises to a condition substantially the same as the condition before the minor change (see section 42B Residential Tenancies Act 1986); (b) The absence of pre tenancy photographs to determine whether there were picture holes before the tenants moved in; (c) The tenant’s evidence that there were landlord fixtures on the walls which would have been included in the painting; (d) The likely wear and tear after an almost four-year tenancy that would have also been painted; and (e) The painting of all interior walls including those without wall holes caused by the tenant.

As both parties have had some success with their claim, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4847920 — net $600.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Painting	$600.00	Repairs: Painting
Net award	$600.00
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$600.00

Order

Michael Adam Steer and Ziqian Rod Tian to pay City Sales Limited As Agent For Perera $600.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (3314045-019) immediately apportioned as follows: City Sales Limited As Agent For Perera: $600.00 Michael Adam Steer and Ziqian Rod Tian: $1,720.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond.
Before the tenancy ended there were issues between the parties in relation to marketing of the premises for sale. The tenant did not agree to the holding of Open Homes while still accommodating access for prospective buyers. From the email evidence produced it seems that the landlord was not happy with the tenant’s stance even though the tenant is not required to agree to Open Homes. The relationship between the parties seems to have deteriorated on this issue.
When the tenancy ended the tenant asked to be present at the exit inspection and while initially denied the tenant happened to be in the building when the Property Manager attended for the inspection.
The tenant says that there was no mention of any damage during the inspection. It was only when the tenant enquired about release of the bond that the tenant was told that he would not be getting his bond back because the premises needed to be painted.
The tenant had hung pictures on the walls in some of the rooms of the premises. The tenant says that a previous Property Manager had given verbal permission for this. It seems that there was no issue raised at any time by the landlord in relation to the pictures on the wall.
The landlord produced photographs from after the tenancy ended showing many small wall holes in several rooms.
When the tenant removed the pictures, the holes were filled by the tenant. The tenant did not paint the filled holes. The tenant did offer to paint the holes when the issue was raised but the landlord did not allow the tenant to carry out the work. Instead, the landlord employed a painting company to paint the walls in the premises.
The landlord has produced an invoice dated 13 February 2024 for $3,047.50. In the description the invoice states “sand all filler, spot prime all filler, sand all interior walls ready for 2 coats of Resene Paint”.
It was agreed at the hearing that not all the walls required painting but the invoice states that all interior walls were painted.
The tenant has raised the issue of the cost of the paint and materials and the amount claimed for the labour. I agree that the amount of the invoice is more than would be a reasonable amount for the painting required. Instead, I have allowed $200.00 for paint and materials and $400.00 for eight hours work at $50.00 per hour.
I have reduced the invoice for the painting after taking account of the evidence submitted including the following: (a) The requirement for the tenant, on or before the expiry of the tenancy, to return the premises to a condition substantially the same as the condition before the minor change (see section 42B Residential Tenancies Act 1986); (b) The absence of pre tenancy photographs to determine whether there were picture holes before the tenants moved in; (c) The tenant’s evidence that there were landlord fixtures on the walls which would have been included in the painting; (d) The likely wear and tear after an almost four-year tenancy that would have also been painted; and (e) The painting of all interior walls including those without wall holes caused by the tenant.
As both parties have had some success with their claim, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4847920 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4, 21 Day Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4847920 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4, 21 Day Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions