What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4873240?

The tribunal order states: Kieran Keighley and Rebecca Keighley are to pay Merryn Robson, Murray

How much money was awarded in case 4873240?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Flyscreen: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Tv Bracket: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Roasting Dish: $37.49 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $25.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873240?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873240?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10533042-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4873240?

The tribunal order states: Kieran Keighley and Rebecca Keighley are to pay Merryn Robson, Murray

How much money was awarded in case 4873240?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to tenant; Flyscreen: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Tv Bracket: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Roasting Dish: $37.49 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $25.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4873240?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness, Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4873240?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10533042-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

81 No 1 Line Pohangina, Pohangina, Ashhurst 4884 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4873240 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4873240 — net $763.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning
Repairs: tv bracket	$150.00		Repairs: tv bracket
Repairs: painting	$200.00		Repairs: painting
Replace furnishings: smoke alarm	$25.78		Replace furnishings: smoke alarm
Replace furnishings: roasting dish	$37.49		Replace furnishings: roasting dish
Repairs: flyscreen	$400.00		Repairs: flyscreen
Exemplary damages		$250.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$1,013.27	$250.00
Net award	$763.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$763.27

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4873240 — net $763.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$200.00		Cleaning
Repairs: tv bracket	$150.00		Repairs: tv bracket
Repairs: painting	$200.00		Repairs: painting
Replace furnishings: smoke alarm	$25.78		Replace furnishings: smoke alarm
Replace furnishings: roasting dish	$37.49		Replace furnishings: roasting dish
Repairs: flyscreen	$400.00		Repairs: flyscreen
Exemplary damages		$250.00	Exemplary damages
Total award	$1,013.27	$250.00
Net award	$763.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$763.27

Order

Kieran Keighley and Rebecca Keighley are to pay Merryn Robson, Murray Blackley And Philippa Blackley As Trustees Of The Nixon Blackley Family Trust $763.27 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord is to pay the balance of the bond of $436.73 to the tenant immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to pay the bond to the Bond Centre.
The landlord has applied for: a. Rent arrears. b. Compensation for cleaning. c. Compensation for repairs. d. Compensation for replacing furnishings. e. Compensation for damage to the landlord’s baleage.
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the parties must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. I have considered each of the claims bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, I have considered all the evidence presented, including oral testimony. I have weighed this evidence to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Where there are serious allegations, or important matters at stake, then the Tribunal will wish to see a level of supporting evidence befitting the significance of the matters to be adjudicated.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While I may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, do not infer that the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
Section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires the Tribunal to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. I have determined the parties’ claims with this requirement in mind. The bond
The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord accepts that the bond has not been paid to the Bond Centre. The landlord has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord advised that he did not know of his responsibilities in relation to the bond. Ignorance of the law is not an acceptable excuse. A landlord is in business as a landlord and is expected know its legal obligations. The District Court has confirmed that “Like all citizens a landlord is deemed to know the law. Parliament’s intention would be subverted if landlords were able to escape the consequences of unlawful acts by claiming ignorance of the law.”
It is in the public interest that landlords be deterred from retaining bond payments. The bond money is the tenant’s money. It needs to be paid to the Bond Centre to keep it separate from the landlord’s money and protected against unwarranted claims by the landlord.
It is appropriate that as this is the landlord’s first appearance in the Tribunal, a sum of $250.00 be awarded to the tenant in exemplary damages for the landlord’s unlawful act.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 25 April 2024. The landlord provided rent records showing that there was rent owing for the final 15 days. Rent was calculated and paid monthly. The rent owing for 15 days in April 2024 was $600.00.
The tenant provided evidence in a text that they had paid the landlord $600.00 in cash on 17 August 2023. This payment was not included in the landlord’s statement.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the payment was made and that there is no amount owing for rent at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed.

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 and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There is no definition of “reasonably clean and tidy" in the RTA. This can make it difficult when people have different understandings of what it means. Tribunal and District Court decisions over the years have said that it means: a. To the standard an average reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. b. Not commercially clean, spotless, or to hotel standard. c. The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises so the better and newer the premises, the higher the standard. d. Not necessarily to the standard where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. e. There is no requirement that each and every individual item in the premises be left “reasonably” clean and tidy, only an overall obligation in relation to the tenancy premises.
A landlord may often decide to clean premises to a higher standard than that required from the outgoing tenant before re-tenanting or selling for example by rigorously cleaning all walls, ceilings, lightshades, skirtings, window and door sills, plugs and drains, silicone edging, behind fittings and appliances, and the outside of windows and of the house.
However, a landlord is only required to provide tenancy premises in a “reasonable state of cleanliness” (see s45(1)(a) RTA) so the next tenant cannot insist that premises are presented to a higher standard. If a landlord chooses to do so, perhaps to attract tenants, then that is a business decision that they are entitled to make at their cost.
The landlord provided photographic and video evidence of the property at the end of the tenancy. The evidence indicates that the property was left largely reasonably clean and tidy. There were some areas that required attention such as a cupboard in a laundry, some windowsills, the oven, and the fireplace required emptying.
It is appropriate to award a modest sum to cover the cost of completing these matters. In deciding the amount to award I have considered invoices which the Tribunal regularly sees for such services in this locality.
The tenant complained at the hearing that the landlord prevented the tenant from completing these final tasks. I am not persuaded on the evidence that the landlord is responsible for the tenant’s failure to finalise the cleaning. Missing chattels
The landlord claimed that the following chattels were missing from the property at the end of the tenancy: a. A smoke alarm. b. A roasting dish. c. A strainer plug.
The landlord has persuaded the Tribunal that the smoke alarm was missing from the property and compensation in the amount claimed is awarded to the landlord.
The tenant acknowledged that the roasting dish was inadvertently removed at the end of the tenancy but that a replacement was sent to the landlord. The landlord denied receiving any replacement and produced a receipt for a replacement. It is appropriate to award the landlord this amount in compensation.
It is not appropriate to reimburse the landlord for a plug which it claimed was missing at the end of the tenancy. The amount claimed was minimal and such expenses are usual in the business of being a landlord. The landlord’s claim for this item is not accepted.

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.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage 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. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
A tenant is not liable for fair wear and tear, meaning damage during ordinary use. The case of Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore TT216/94 (as cited in “Residential Tenancy Law in New Zealand by Stewart Benson p 122) provides a useful summary of the law: “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 fair wear and tear as an explanation, the landlord will fail in the claim.”
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy by the tenant: a. There was extensive scuff damage to the walls and ceilings. b. An exterior wall had been chipped. c. A flyscreen was damaged. d. A benchtop had been chipped. e. A small shelf in the laundry needed to be reattached. f. An external door in the carport was damaged. g. The oven and the benchtop stove were scratched and damaged beyond repair. h. The carpets throughout the house were damaged by dog urine and required replacement. i. A television bracket had been installed by the tenant and needed to be removed and the area reinstated to its original condition. j. An external internet connection had been changed. k. Bar stools included in the tenancy had been so significantly damaged as to require replacement. l. The shower curtain was so soiled that it required replacement. m. A door stopper was broken. n. Some curtain hooks were broken.
The landlord’s evidence showed scuff marks on walls, skirtings and some ceilings that is beyond usual wear and tear given its extensive nature. It is not clear that these areas required painting and could not have been simply cleaned. The work has not been done and the property has been re-let. The landlord provided only a quote and an estimate. It is arguable that the landlord has suffered no loss and has not sufficiently quantified it for the Tribunal to make an award. However, the Tribunal is persuaded that the landlord has suffered a loss and that the tenant should pay some compensation considering the amount also awarded for cleaning. Given the deficiencies in the landlord’s evidence, a modest sum has been awarded.
The tenant denied that the exterior scuff mark had occurred during the tenancy. The landlord could not provide evidence that the wall was undamaged at the start of the tenancy. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The tenant accepted that the flyscreen was damaged during the tenancy but denied liability. The tenant claimed that the damage was caused by a bird.
Having inspected the photographic evidence of the damage, I do not accept that a bird could have caused such damage. The landlord has not repaired the flyscreen and produced only an estimate of the likely cost. In the absence of evidence of the actual loss suffered, it is appropriate to award a modest sum in compensation.
The landlord produced a photograph of an area of the kitchen benchtop showing that a chip had been glued in place. The tenant denied liability and claimed that it was there at the start of the tenancy. The landlord’s photograph at the start of the tenancy did not show this area in sufficient detail to determine whether it was undamaged at the start of the tenancy. The landlord produced an unsigned entry report that did not record any damage. The report has little probative value without it having been accepted as accurate by the tenant signing it.
The Tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that this damage was caused by the tenant during the tenancy. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed that a shelf in the laundry was broken by the tenant during the tenancy and required reinstatement. The tenant gave evidence that the shelf was only glued on and fell down one day in their absence.
Given the shelf’s flimsy nature and method of attachment, the Tribunal is not satisfied that its falling off the wall was caused by the tenant or was not due to fair wear and tear. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The tenant denied that the carport door was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence that the door was already damaged at the start of the tenancy. The landlord could not provide any photographic or other evidence of the condition of the door at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has not proven that the damage occurred during the tenancy and so the landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord provided photographic evidence that the ceramic lining on the bottom of the oven had been badly scratched and that the stove top had been scratched and marked. The landlord claimed that the damage was such as to require replacement of these items. The tenant denied causing any damage to the oven and claimed that the surface marks on the stove top were from normal wear and tear.
The landlord advised that the oven and stove top had not been replaced and were being used by the current tenant as far as he was aware. The landlord had no photographic evidence to confirm the condition of these items at the start of the tenancy.
The landlord has failed to persuade the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy, was not fair wear and tear or has caused the landlord to suffer loss. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord complained that the tenant kept dogs at the property despite the tenancy agreement prohibiting pets. The landlord was aware of the dogs being at the property and instructed the tenant not to allow them into the house. The landlord claim is for the replacement of all of the carpets in the property because of “dog smell” which the landlord believes was caused by the dogs being inside the house and urinating on the carpet. The landlord provided photographs of walls in the house which he claimed showed urine.
The tenant gave evidence that the dogs never urinated inside the house and that the carpets were professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The tenant provided a copy of an email from the contractor denying that the carpets smelt, confirming that he had used an anti-animal smell solution and that the carpets were in “great, tidy and clean condition.”
In the absence of the landlord producing a specialist report confirming the presence of dog urine and that the carpets were unable to be treated and must be replaced, the landlord’s claim must be dismissed.
The tenant installed a wall bracket to hold a television. The tenant gave evidence that one of the landlords gave verbal consent. The landlord denied giving consent and noted that the tenant had not followed the procedure in section 42 RTA.
The fixing of the wall bracket is not an unlawful act under the RTA and so exemplary damages are not available. However, the tenant’s obligation is to remove the fixture and reinstate the wall to its previous condition. See section 42 RTA. The tenant did not do so. It is therefore appropriate to award the landlord a sum by way of compensation that is commensurate with the work required based on invoices which the Tribunal regularly sees for such work in this locality.
The tenant acknowledged that the external internet connection had been changed. The tenant advised that it was replaced with a superior piece of equipment and that no damage had been done to the property.
The landlord did not provide any evidence of damage or loss in relation to this fixture. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of scuffing caused to barstools that were provided with the property. The landlord claimed that they were damaged beyond repair and required replacement.
The tenant gave evidence that the marks on the bar stools were fair wear and tear incurred in ordinary everyday use by the two adult tenants and their two children.
The Tribunal is not persuaded that the damage was more than fair wear and tear, nor that the damage was such that they require replacement because they are unusable. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord gave evidence that the shower curtain was new at the start of the tenancy but that due to the inaction of the tenant, it was stained to an extent that it needed replacement at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant explained that they followed the instructions of one of the landlords as to the care of the curtain and also washed it twice in the washing machine.
A plastic shower curtain is an expendable item with a brief life and a low value. If the landlord could not return it to an acceptable condition, it seems very unlikely that the tenant could have maintained it to an acceptable standard. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord’s small loss from the broken doorstop and curtain hooks are a small cost of being a landlord and the Tribunal is not persuaded that their damage was caused by more than fair wear and tear. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
As the landlord has not been substantially successful in its claims, it is not appropriate that the landlord’s name be suppressed.
As both parties have had success in their applications, it is appropriate that they each bear their own filing fees. Baleage
The landlord claimed that the tenant’s dogs had damaged baleage stored along the fence line in a neighbouring paddock. The damage was caused to a farming entity related to the landlord.
As the damage does not arise out of the tenancy, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873240 — Property damage at 81 No 1 Line Pohangina, Pohangina, Ashhurst 4884

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4873240 — Property damage at 81 No 1 Line Pohangina, Pohangina, Ashhurst 4884

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

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