What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4875109?

The tribunal order states: Terauaroha Taraikiterangi Elliott and Leslie Jacob Oppert must pay Ngaire

How much money was awarded in case 4875109?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Exterior cladding, pantry door, loun…: $1,707.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $346.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4875109?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4875109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10662098-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4875109?

The tribunal order states: Terauaroha Taraikiterangi Elliott and Leslie Jacob Oppert must pay Ngaire

How much money was awarded in case 4875109?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Exterior cladding, pantry door, loun…: $1,707.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $346.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4875109?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4875109?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10662098-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1B Earls Place, Onerahi, Whangarei 0110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4875109 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4875109 — net $1,204.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Damage to garage roller door	$550.00	Repairs: Damage to garage roller door
Repairs: Exterior cladding, pantry door, lounge walls	$1,707.75	Repairs: Exterior cladding, pantry door, lounge walls
Repairs: Painting and minor repairs	$346.77	Repairs: Painting and minor repairs
Cleaning	$300.00	claim for 10 hours of cleaning is fair and reasonable. I will award $300 for interior cleaning.
Net award	$1,204.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,204.52

Order

Terauaroha Taraikiterangi Elliott and Leslie Jacob Oppert must pay Ngaire Brittain and Selwyn Kahotea (as trustees of the Herene Tai Trust) $1,204.52 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,700.00 (3496651-010) to Ngaire Brittain and Selwyn Kahotea (as trustees of the Herene Tai Trust immediately.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 24 November 2020 and ended on 6 May 2024.
The tenants’ application disputes liability for the stove and seeks a refund of the bond.
The landlord’s application seeks replacement of the stove, replacement of the garage roller door, repairs, and cleaning costs.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 2 August 2024. All parties attended the hearing. Damage General principles 1
In any claim for damage the landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the period of the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear.
Tenants are liable for careless or intentional damage caused by themselves or by anyone who is at the premises with their consent.
If the landlord is insured, the tenant’s liability for careless damage is limited to the amount of the policy excess or the equivalent of four weeks’ rent (whichever is the lesser). This limit does not apply to intentional damage. Stove
Ms Brittain and Mr Kahotea said that: a. During an inspection in January 2024 Ms Brittain found that the control panel at the top of the stove was completely detached from the stove, and was hanging loose. b. They advised the tenants to stop using the stove. c. The stove has suffered some sort of impact. d. The stove cannot be economically repaired.
Mr Oppert and Ms Elliott said that: a. They had some minor difficulties with various elements on the stove during the tenancy, but they were not particularly concerned about those difficulties. b. The control panel is secured with a plastic clip at each end. Over time, and due to exposure to heat vented from the oven, the plastic has become very brittle. 1 Sections 49A, 49B, and 49C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) c. The control panel was loose, but was not hanging down and detached as shown in the landlord’s photograph.
The landlord and tenants disagreed about whether this is damage for which the tenant is liable, or whether it is a maintenance issue.
I understand why this dispute arose – a case could be made either way.
Mr Kahotea estimated that the stove was around 10-15 years old by the end of the tenancy, which I agree is a reasonable guess having regard to the photographs provided to me. I accept Mr Kahotea’s statement that the stove was in good working order with no obvious damage when this tenancy began in 2020.
I accept Mr Oppert’s statement that the control panel is (or was) secured by means of a plastic clip at each end.
Ms Brittain’s photographs show that the panel has come loose because the plastic side pieces, including the clips, were damaged.
That damage could be explained by a violent impact, but it could also be explained by the plastic becoming brittle due to age and exposure to heat.
As discussed below, there was some damage to parts of this property during the tenancy. However, that damage can be reasonably explained by normal, occasionally careless, human behaviour. Mr Oppert’s cousin nudged the garage roller door with her car. His son crashed his trike into the side of the house, damaging the cladding. Holes in the wall happen sometimes, particularly when young children are involved.
It is difficult to imagine in what circumstances the top sides of the stove would receive a violent impact due to some careless or intentional action by the tenant.
My finding is that it is not proven, to the standard of more likely than not, that the damage was due to some careless or intentional action by the tenant.
Therefore I find that the tenants are not liable for the cost of replacing the stove. Replacement of the garage door
The garage door would not open and close properly and Ms Brittain’s photographs show a crease / dent on the outside of the door.
It is most likely that this damage happened when Mr Oppert’s cousin hit the door with her vehicle early in the tenancy.
I accept that the door cannot be repaired.
The claim seeks the cost of replacing the door.
Ms Brittain confirmed that the premises are insured, and that the policy excess is $550.00.
This was careless not intentional damage.
The claim is proven to the limit of the tenants’ liability, which is $550.00. Other repairs
The claim seeks $1,707.75 for repairs to the pantry door, exterior cladding, and repair of holes in walls (partially repaired by tenants), per an estimate from P B Builders Ltd.
Ms Brittain confirmed that the work was completed by P B Builders per the estimate.
The tenants did not dispute this part of the claim.
The claim seeks $346.77 for painting and minor repairs carried out by Ms Brittain.
The tenants did not dispute this part of the claim. Cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy 2 .
Ms Brittain provided photographs showing the interior and exterior of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The claim originally sought $1,040.75 for interior cleaning per a quote from Karibiner Cleaning, and $330.00 for washing down the exterior of the house per a quote from Wash Rite Northland.
At the hearing Mr Kahotea explained that they did not proceed with Karibiner Cleaning because they carried out various work on the house. There was some general cleaning that Ms Brittain carried out such as wiping down walls. Ms Brittain estimated that she spent approximately 10 hours cleaning.
The end of the tenancy photographs show that parts of the house were not to the reasonably clean and tidy standard. The revised claim for 10 hours of cleaning is fair and reasonable. I will award $300 for interior cleaning.
The tenant’s responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy does not extend to washing down the exterior walls of the house. 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA Bond, filing fee
The landlord’s proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.
Both parties have been partially successful in their applications and are entitled to be awarded the filing fee 3 . Rather than award the filing fee to both, I will make no orders for the filing fee, as the awards would cancel each other out.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4875109 — net $1,204.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Damage to garage roller door	$550.00	Repairs: Damage to garage roller door
Repairs: Exterior cladding, pantry door, lounge walls	$1,707.75	Repairs: Exterior cladding, pantry door, lounge walls
Repairs: Painting and minor repairs	$346.77	Repairs: Painting and minor repairs
Cleaning	$300.00	claim for 10 hours of cleaning is fair and reasonable. I will award $300 for interior cleaning.
Net award	$1,204.52
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,204.52

Order

Terauaroha Taraikiterangi Elliott and Leslie Jacob Oppert must pay Ngaire Brittain and Selwyn Kahotea (as trustees of the Herene Tai Trust) $1,204.52 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,700.00 (3496651-010) to Ngaire Brittain and Selwyn Kahotea (as trustees of the Herene Tai Trust immediately.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy began on 24 November 2020 and ended on 6 May 2024.
The tenants’ application disputes liability for the stove and seeks a refund of the bond.
The landlord’s application seeks replacement of the stove, replacement of the garage roller door, repairs, and cleaning costs.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 2 August 2024. All parties attended the hearing. Damage General principles 1
In any claim for damage the landlord must prove that the damage occurred during the period of the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear.
Tenants are liable for careless or intentional damage caused by themselves or by anyone who is at the premises with their consent.
If the landlord is insured, the tenant’s liability for careless damage is limited to the amount of the policy excess or the equivalent of four weeks’ rent (whichever is the lesser). This limit does not apply to intentional damage. Stove
Ms Brittain and Mr Kahotea said that: a. During an inspection in January 2024 Ms Brittain found that the control panel at the top of the stove was completely detached from the stove, and was hanging loose. b. They advised the tenants to stop using the stove. c. The stove has suffered some sort of impact. d. The stove cannot be economically repaired.
Mr Oppert and Ms Elliott said that: a. They had some minor difficulties with various elements on the stove during the tenancy, but they were not particularly concerned about those difficulties. b. The control panel is secured with a plastic clip at each end. Over time, and due to exposure to heat vented from the oven, the plastic has become very brittle. 1 Sections 49A, 49B, and 49C Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) c. The control panel was loose, but was not hanging down and detached as shown in the landlord’s photograph.
The landlord and tenants disagreed about whether this is damage for which the tenant is liable, or whether it is a maintenance issue.
I understand why this dispute arose – a case could be made either way.
Mr Kahotea estimated that the stove was around 10-15 years old by the end of the tenancy, which I agree is a reasonable guess having regard to the photographs provided to me. I accept Mr Kahotea’s statement that the stove was in good working order with no obvious damage when this tenancy began in 2020.
I accept Mr Oppert’s statement that the control panel is (or was) secured by means of a plastic clip at each end.
Ms Brittain’s photographs show that the panel has come loose because the plastic side pieces, including the clips, were damaged.
That damage could be explained by a violent impact, but it could also be explained by the plastic becoming brittle due to age and exposure to heat.
As discussed below, there was some damage to parts of this property during the tenancy. However, that damage can be reasonably explained by normal, occasionally careless, human behaviour. Mr Oppert’s cousin nudged the garage roller door with her car. His son crashed his trike into the side of the house, damaging the cladding. Holes in the wall happen sometimes, particularly when young children are involved.
It is difficult to imagine in what circumstances the top sides of the stove would receive a violent impact due to some careless or intentional action by the tenant.
My finding is that it is not proven, to the standard of more likely than not, that the damage was due to some careless or intentional action by the tenant.
Therefore I find that the tenants are not liable for the cost of replacing the stove. Replacement of the garage door
The garage door would not open and close properly and Ms Brittain’s photographs show a crease / dent on the outside of the door.
It is most likely that this damage happened when Mr Oppert’s cousin hit the door with her vehicle early in the tenancy.
I accept that the door cannot be repaired.
The claim seeks the cost of replacing the door.
Ms Brittain confirmed that the premises are insured, and that the policy excess is $550.00.
This was careless not intentional damage.
The claim is proven to the limit of the tenants’ liability, which is $550.00. Other repairs
The claim seeks $1,707.75 for repairs to the pantry door, exterior cladding, and repair of holes in walls (partially repaired by tenants), per an estimate from P B Builders Ltd.
Ms Brittain confirmed that the work was completed by P B Builders per the estimate.
The tenants did not dispute this part of the claim.
The claim seeks $346.77 for painting and minor repairs carried out by Ms Brittain.
The tenants did not dispute this part of the claim. Cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy 2 .
Ms Brittain provided photographs showing the interior and exterior of the property at the end of the tenancy.
The claim originally sought $1,040.75 for interior cleaning per a quote from Karibiner Cleaning, and $330.00 for washing down the exterior of the house per a quote from Wash Rite Northland.
At the hearing Mr Kahotea explained that they did not proceed with Karibiner Cleaning because they carried out various work on the house. There was some general cleaning that Ms Brittain carried out such as wiping down walls. Ms Brittain estimated that she spent approximately 10 hours cleaning.
The end of the tenancy photographs show that parts of the house were not to the reasonably clean and tidy standard. The revised claim for 10 hours of cleaning is fair and reasonable. I will award $300 for interior cleaning.
The tenant’s responsibility to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy does not extend to washing down the exterior walls of the house. 2 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) RTA Bond, filing fee
The landlord’s proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.
Both parties have been partially successful in their applications and are entitled to be awarded the filing fee 3 . Rather than award the filing fee to both, I will make no orders for the filing fee, as the awards would cancel each other out.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4875109 — Property damage at 1B Earls Place, Onerahi, Whangarei 0110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4875109 — Property damage at 1B Earls Place, Onerahi, Whangarei 0110

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