What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4877481?

The tribunal order states: Bhrugesh Ramangiri Goswami and Alpeetaben Bhrugesh Goswami must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4877481?

Cleaning: $255.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $242.63 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,070.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $771.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4877481?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4877481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10591164-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4877481?

The tribunal order states: Bhrugesh Ramangiri Goswami and Alpeetaben Bhrugesh Goswami must pay

How much money was awarded in case 4877481?

Cleaning: $255.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $242.63 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,070.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $771.43 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4877481?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4877481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10591164-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24A Derby Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4877481 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4877481 — net $619.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 January 2024	$771.43	Rent arrears to 2 January 2024
Cleaning	$242.63	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$255.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lounge & study walls and ceiling repair	$1,070.00	Lounge & study walls and ceiling repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$619.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$619.50

Bhrugesh Ramangiri Goswami and Alpeetaben Bhrugesh Goswami must pay Braziers Limited and Michael Klopper and Albertien Sijsling $619.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,740.00 (5121911-001) to Braziers Limited As Agent For Michael Klopper & Albertien Sijsling immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Holdem and Ms Gonzalez represented `the landlords. Mr Goswami attended for the tenants.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, costs to clean the premises including the carpets, and costs to repair the lounge and study walls and ceilings. The landlords also claimed refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Mr Goswami accepts the claim for rent and the claim for carpet cleaning but he disputes the other claims.

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

I am satisfied, on the evidence provided (in particular the photographic evidence), that the tenants did not leave areas of the premises reasonably clean as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The amount ordered has been established by the production of an invoice.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

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 (here $550.00) or four weeks' rent ($1,800.00): section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.

The landlords claim the cost ($2,139.00) to paint the walls and ceilings in the lounge and study which they claim were damaged by black soot/smoke or other substance which could not be removed by cleaning. They supported their evidence by photographs of the rooms taken at the end of the tenancy.

Mr Goswami claims that the photographs taken of the lounge at the start of the tenancy show that there were dark stains on areas of the walls then. Ms Gonzalez and Ms Holdem dispute that there was any such damage and referred to another photograph of the same area which does not show any damage. I find that the landlords have established that the damage claimed was not there at the commencement of the tenancy. I consider that it is more likely than not that the darker patches in the photographs referred to by Mr Goswami are simply shadowing from light coming in from windows.

I therefore find that the damage did occur during the tenancy, is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for it. Ms Gonzalez confirmed that the damage is considered to be gradual damage and therefore is not covered by the landlords’ insurance.

The amount claimed to paint the ceilings and the walls (the walls were wallpapered and the cheaper repair was to paint over the wallpaper) has been established by the production of an invoice and quote.

However, I have reduced the amount claimed to take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. Ms Holdem and Ms Gonzalez were unsure when the ceilings were last painted or the age of the wallpaper but both are likely to have been older than the length of this tenancy (four years). Painted walls are expected to last approximately 10 years before requiring repainting. The photographs taken of the wallpaper at the tenancy commencement show some lifting of joins but otherwise the wallpaper appears to be in good condition. Similarly, the photographs of the ceilings indicate that the paint was in good condition as at the start of the tenancy in June 2020. Doing the best I can on the evidence before me I consider a 50% reduction in the amount claimed reasonable to account for deprecation and betterment.

The landlords have been successful in their claims and are therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4877481 — net $619.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 January 2024	$771.43	Rent arrears to 2 January 2024
Cleaning	$242.63	Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$255.00	Carpet Cleaning
Lounge & study walls and ceiling repair	$1,070.00	Lounge & study walls and ceiling repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$619.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$619.50

Order

Bhrugesh Ramangiri Goswami and Alpeetaben Bhrugesh Goswami must pay Braziers Limited and Michael Klopper and Albertien Sijsling $619.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,740.00 (5121911-001) to Braziers Limited As Agent For Michael Klopper & Albertien Sijsling immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Holdem and Ms Gonzalez represented `the landlords. Mr Goswami attended for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, costs to clean the premises including the carpets, and costs to repair the lounge and study walls and ceilings. The landlords also claimed refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Mr Goswami accepts the claim for rent and the claim for carpet cleaning but he disputes the other claims.

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

I am satisfied, on the evidence provided (in particular the photographic evidence), that the tenants did not leave areas of the premises reasonably clean as required by section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The amount ordered has been established by the production of an invoice.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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 (here $550.00) or four weeks' rent ($1,800.00): section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
The landlords claim the cost ($2,139.00) to paint the walls and ceilings in the lounge and study which they claim were damaged by black soot/smoke or other substance which could not be removed by cleaning. They supported their evidence by photographs of the rooms taken at the end of the tenancy.
Mr Goswami claims that the photographs taken of the lounge at the start of the tenancy show that there were dark stains on areas of the walls then. Ms Gonzalez and Ms Holdem dispute that there was any such damage and referred to another photograph of the same area which does not show any damage. I find that the landlords have established that the damage claimed was not there at the commencement of the tenancy. I consider that it is more likely than not that the darker patches in the photographs referred to by Mr Goswami are simply shadowing from light coming in from windows.
I therefore find that the damage did occur during the tenancy, is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for it. Ms Gonzalez confirmed that the damage is considered to be gradual damage and therefore is not covered by the landlords’ insurance.
The amount claimed to paint the ceilings and the walls (the walls were wallpapered and the cheaper repair was to paint over the wallpaper) has been established by the production of an invoice and quote.
However, I have reduced the amount claimed to take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. Ms Holdem and Ms Gonzalez were unsure when the ceilings were last painted or the age of the wallpaper but both are likely to have been older than the length of this tenancy (four years). Painted walls are expected to last approximately 10 years before requiring repainting. The photographs taken of the wallpaper at the tenancy commencement show some lifting of joins but otherwise the wallpaper appears to be in good condition. Similarly, the photographs of the ceilings indicate that the paint was in good condition as at the start of the tenancy in June 2020. Doing the best I can on the evidence before me I consider a 50% reduction in the amount claimed reasonable to account for deprecation and betterment.
The landlords have been successful in their claims and are therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4877481 — Property damage at 24A Derby Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4877481 — Property damage at 24A Derby Street, St Albans, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants 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 tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions