How much money was awarded in case 4906133?

Cleaning: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,055.13 awarded to landlord; Replace Chattels: Coffee Table: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,250.62 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: kitchen splashb…: $2,121.75 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $776.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4906133?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906133?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10850790-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4906133?

Cleaning: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,055.13 awarded to landlord; Replace Chattels: Coffee Table: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,250.62 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: kitchen splashb…: $2,121.75 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $776.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4906133?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906133?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10850790-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Apartment 2505, 8 Airedale Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4906133 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4906133?

The tribunal order states: Jingrui Chen must pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited as agent for Gillian and

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4906133 — net $3,225.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace chattels: coffee table	$180.00	Replace chattels: coffee table
Replace furnishings: vinyl flooring	$776.25	Replace furnishings: vinyl flooring
Replace furnishings: carpet	$1,250.62	Replace furnishings: carpet
Cleaning	$201.25	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: kitchen splashback	$2,121.75	Replace furnishings: kitchen splashback
Wall damage repairs	$1,055.13	Wall damage repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,225.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,225.44

Jingrui Chen must pay Viaduct City Rentals Limited as agent for Gillian and Terence Chamberlain $3,225.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,380.00 (6084586-007) to Viaduct City Rentals Limited as agent for Gillian and Terence Chamberlain immediately.

The claim for compensation for the cabinet door hinges is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend the hearing however, at the commencement of the hearing Yat Fan Lau provided a written letter of authorisation for him to attend as the tenant’s representative. The letter further advised that the tenant was in China and unable to attend.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Evidence at the hearing

The tenant is currently in China. It was, however, open to the tenant to attend the hearing by telephone or to provide a written response to the claim against him. The letter of authorisation included one line that stated he denied all claims against him.

As the tenant did not attend, I was unable to receive evidence directly from him in response to each of the landlords’ claims. Although Yat Fan Lau did attend, he attended as the tenant’s representative and as I explained during the hearing, he was therefore unable to give evidence as a witness.

I was however able to receive written documents from Yat Fan Lau and have considered these in my decision.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The exit report and supporting photographs record that the bathroom and kitchen in particular needed cleaning. The landlord has provided an invoice for cleaning of $201.25.

The amount ordered is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has claimed for damage to the premises and chattels totalling $6,133.70. This includes claims for a replacement coffee table, a damaged kitchen splashback, a portion of vinyl floor replacement, carpet replacement, wall damage (entrance and bathroom), cabinet door hinges and for the removal of stickers around smoke alarms (with associated internal linings repair).

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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. Coffee table

The landlord has claimed that the coffee table was damaged during the tenancy due to cigarette and burn marks to the table. There are photographs from inspections during the tenancy which show used cigarettes on or near the table.

The tenancy agreement makes it clear that smoking is prohibited in the apartment. Smoking in the apartment is in my view an intentional act, and any damage that occurs as a result is also intentional as damage is a likely consequence.

The amount claimed is $225.57 for replacement and an additional labour cost for assembly of the table (included in an invoice I will refer to later).

The amount claimed is proven.

The table was not new at the commencement of the tenancy, however the landlord advised that it was in good condition. It is expected that during the tenancy the table would have had some wear and tear, and therefore to return the landlord to the position they would have been in, had the tenant not caused the damage, I am unable to award the full cost of a brand-new table. To do so would put the landlord in a better position.

I therefore award the amount of $180.00 for the cost of the table. I award the full cost of assembly, covered in an invoice I discuss later. Kitchen splashback

The landlord has claimed that the kitchen splashback behind the cooktop was cracked during the tenancy. The photographs prior to the tenancy show the splashback in perfect condition and the photographs in the exit report prove the crack occurred during the tenancy.

The landlord submits that damage to the kitchen splashback is not expected or fair wear and tear, it would be very difficult for this damage to occur through normal use. The landlord did not know exactly how the cracked was caused and stated that when they asked the tenant, they did not know either.

I find the weight of evidence supports the landlord’s claim that the damage was more likely than not caused during the tenancy. I also find the damage was more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for, albeit at most, the careless damage.

The landlord has provided an invoice for a new splashback of $2,121.75, including installation and labour costs.

The amount claimed is less than four weeks rent and is proven. Vinyl flooring

The landlord has claimed for damage to the vinyl flooring in the kitchen. The landlord accepts that there were some existing scratches to the flooring near the entrance. However, there is a deep scratch near the fridge which the photographs show did occur during the tenancy.

The invoice provided shows total cost of the floor replacement was $2,587.50 (including GST). The landlord is seeking 30% of this cost, as representative of the tenant’s portion of damage to the flooring.

The landlord says that this is not fair wear and tear, as the depth of the scratch shows that something incredibly heavy must have caused the damage. The apartment is fully furnished, so normal use did not include moving furniture in or out of the apartment. The tenant has not disproven that this damage was careless.

The amount of 30% claimed appears to be a reasonable amount for the damage caused by the tenant.

The claimed amount of $776.25 is proven, amounting to 30% of the total cost to replace the vinyl flooring in the kitchen area. Carpet

The landlord has claimed for the cost to replace the carpet.

The landlord states that the carpet was in good condition prior to the tenancy, but at the end of the tenancy there were black spots covering the carpet, and a strong smell of cigarette smoke throughout. Despite both the tenant and the landlord using professional carpet cleaners, the smell and spotting remained.

An invoice has been provided for carpet replacement of $1,667.50 (including GST) and this amount is proven.

The damage has been caused by cigarette smoking which was prohibited by the tenancy agreement. There are photographs during tenancy inspections of cigarettes in the apartment, inside ash trays, and of smoke alarms being taped over or covered in plastic. The tenant has not disproven that this damage was intentional. I find that the damage was therefore intentional, and the tenant is liable for the carpet replacement.

The landlord was unable to advise how old the carpet was; however, the apartment is likely less than ten years old, so I have assumed the carpet is also less than ten years old. I acknowledge that it is difficult to know the exact age of the carpet.

However, the evidence I received is that the carpet was not brand new, and likely already had some wear but that it was in good condition. To award the cost of new carpet would put the landlord in a better position than if the tenant had not caused damage to the carpet. I have therefore applied a 25% reduction to the amount claimed for carpet replacement.

The amount ordered for carpet replacement is $1,250.62. Walls

The landlord claims for damage to the walls in the entrance, bathroom, around smoke alarms and the corners of curtains. The landlord has provided photographs that show yellow and red marks on the entrance walls, chips and dents in the bathroom and damage caused as a result of stickers (or other items) being placed around smoke alarm and the corners of curtains.

The landlord claims that the damage to the entrance and bathroom walls is not fair wear and tear, and the damage caused by stickers or items being stuck over smoke alarms and around curtains is intentional.

I am satisfied, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that this damage was caused during the tenancy and was careless and in the case of the stickers over smoke alarms, intentional.

The landlord has provided an invoice for this damage to be remedied totalling $1,055.13. The cost to repair the entrance wall was $442.75 (including GST), the bathroom was $97.75 (including GST), and the sticker removal was $63.25 (including GST). The invoice also includes costs for labour, travel and parking of $451.38 (including GST) and although a portion of this relates to the coffee table assembly referred to above, for ease I have included it in the cost for repairs to the walls.

The amounts ordered are proven. Cabinet door hinges

The landlord has claimed for the cost to tighten cabinet hinges. The invoice confirms this cost as $86.25 (including GST).

During the hearing the landlord accepted that this was fair wear and tear. The tenant’s representative also provided an email to show that the tenant had raised this issue early in the tenancy, but the repair had not occurred.

It is not clear exactly when the email was sent, and I was unable to confirm with the tenant.

In any event, this claim is dismissed as the landlord has accepted the damage to the cabinet door hinges was fair wear and tear. Summary of damage claims

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: coffee table damage, cracked kitchen splashback, vinyl floor damage, carpet damage and damage to the walls. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, in some instances intentional, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken 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. In calculating depreciation, I have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Because Viaduct City Rentals Limited as agent for Gillian and Terence Chamberlain has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. R Harvey-Lane 24 September 2024

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4906133 — net $3,225.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace chattels: coffee table	$180.00	Replace chattels: coffee table
Replace furnishings: vinyl flooring	$776.25	Replace furnishings: vinyl flooring
Replace furnishings: carpet	$1,250.62	Replace furnishings: carpet
Cleaning	$201.25	Cleaning
Replace furnishings: kitchen splashback	$2,121.75	Replace furnishings: kitchen splashback
Wall damage repairs	$1,055.13	Wall damage repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,225.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,225.44