What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4908511?

The tribunal order states: Stuart Nimmo must pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 4908511?

Property Damage: $615.95 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Walls, Door And Ceiling: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Heat pump remot…: $204.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4908511?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4908511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10784672-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4908511?

The tribunal order states: Stuart Nimmo must pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 4908511?

Property Damage: $615.95 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Walls, Door And Ceiling: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Heat pump remot…: $204.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4908511?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4908511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10784672-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 15 Bridgewater Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4908511 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4908511 — net $1,841.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Heat pump remote (x2	$204.70	Replace furnishings: Heat pump remote (x2
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Kitchen and dining	$615.95	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Kitchen and dining
Repairs: Walls, door and ceiling	$1,000.00	Repairs: Walls, door and ceiling
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,841.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,841.09

Order

Stuart Nimmo must pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Raymond Henderson $1,841.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord must prove each claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning
The landlord provided photographs of the property after the tenancy. No rubbish or personal belongings were left at the property. There were no spills or marks on the floor or walls that required cleaning. I accept that the kitchen drawer and shelves below the sink needed a wipe, and that the oven had some cooking residue on it. Other than these minor issues, the property was left reasonably clean and tidy. A tenant does not have to leave the property in an immaculate condition, only a reasonably clean and tidy one, which the tenant did. I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation of $94.50 for cleaning. Keys
The landlord advised the Tribunal that the tenant did not return the key to the front door and removed a wall panel heater. The landlord sought compensation of $25.00 for the cutting of a new key and $139.00 to replace the wall panel heater.
The landlord did not submit invoices with their written application and was unable to locate any during the hearing. I allowed the landlord until 12:00pm the next day, 3 September 2024, to submit the original invoices. The landlord did not provide original invoices for the key cutting or wall panel heater, only an invoice issued in the name of Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited. The Tribunal requested the landlord to send in the original invoices on 3 September 2024 and again on 4 September 2024. The landlord advised the Tribunal that they did not have the original invoices.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation of $25.00 for the cutting a new front door key and $139.00 to replace the wall panel heater. Original invoices have not been provided and the amounts claimed are therefore not proven. Heat pump remotes (x2)
The landlord provided photographs of two heat pump remotes that were present at the beginning of the tenancy. These remotes were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an original invoice for the purchase of two heat pump remotes for $204.70. The landlord’s claim for compensation for this amount is proven and granted. Reinstatement of kitchen and dining lights
Section 42(1)(a) and (b) RTA prohibits the tenant from affixing any fixture to the premises or making any renovation, alteration, or addition to the premises unless in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior written consent of the landlord.
The landlord advised the Tribunal that the tenant replaced the lights in the kitchen and dining area without the consent of the landlord. The photographs taken before and after the tenancy confirm that the tenant installed new lights in these areas. The landlord sought compensation of $615.95 to reinstate the original lighting.
I find that the tenant breached section 42(1)(a) and (b) by replacing the lighting in the kitchen and dining area without the consent of the landlord. The landlord provided an original invoice for $615.95 from Residential Electrical Services Ltd. The landlord’s claim for compensation for this amount is proven and granted.

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 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Removal of wall paint on multiple sites the property. b. Holes and marks in the kitchen and dining ceiling where the tenant replaced the lights. c. Nail holes in the door.
Some of the damage to the walls is fair wear and tear however, other damage is not. For example, in the tenant’s bedroom there are more than nine patches requiring plastering and painting on one wall. Similarly, the damage to the ceiling caused by the tenant removing and replacing the original light fittings is not fair wear and tear, nor are the large nail holes in the door.
The landlord sought compensation of $2,875.00 (including GST) for plastering and painting the walls, ceiling and door.
The property is relatively small, being a one-bedroom apartment with a dining/living area, kitchen and bathroom. The tenancy began on 17 June 2024 and ended on 4 May 2024 (11 months). Some allowance must be made for fair wear and tear over this time, particularly in terms of the tenant affixing photographs, paintings or mirrors to the walls to personalise the space.
The invoice of $2,875.00 from Bamboo Tea & Decorating Ltd seems relatively high considering the size of the property and extent of the damage, particularly when an allowance is made for fair wear and tear. No quotes from other trade companies were provided to support the reasonableness of the invoice. The invoice also did not provide detail of an hourly rate, how long each task took or the cost of materials.
Considering the above factors, I have granted the landlord’s claim for compensation to repair and paint the walls and ceiling at a reduced amount of $1,000.00, which seems a reasonable amount.
Because Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Raymond Henderson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4908511 — net $1,841.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Heat pump remote (x2	$204.70	Replace furnishings: Heat pump remote (x2
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Kitchen and dining	$615.95	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Kitchen and dining
Repairs: Walls, door and ceiling	$1,000.00	Repairs: Walls, door and ceiling
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,841.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,841.09

Order

Stuart Nimmo must pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Raymond Henderson $1,841.09 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord must prove each claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Cleaning
The landlord provided photographs of the property after the tenancy. No rubbish or personal belongings were left at the property. There were no spills or marks on the floor or walls that required cleaning. I accept that the kitchen drawer and shelves below the sink needed a wipe, and that the oven had some cooking residue on it. Other than these minor issues, the property was left reasonably clean and tidy. A tenant does not have to leave the property in an immaculate condition, only a reasonably clean and tidy one, which the tenant did. I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation of $94.50 for cleaning. Keys
The landlord advised the Tribunal that the tenant did not return the key to the front door and removed a wall panel heater. The landlord sought compensation of $25.00 for the cutting of a new key and $139.00 to replace the wall panel heater.
The landlord did not submit invoices with their written application and was unable to locate any during the hearing. I allowed the landlord until 12:00pm the next day, 3 September 2024, to submit the original invoices. The landlord did not provide original invoices for the key cutting or wall panel heater, only an invoice issued in the name of Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited. The Tribunal requested the landlord to send in the original invoices on 3 September 2024 and again on 4 September 2024. The landlord advised the Tribunal that they did not have the original invoices.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for compensation of $25.00 for the cutting a new front door key and $139.00 to replace the wall panel heater. Original invoices have not been provided and the amounts claimed are therefore not proven. Heat pump remotes (x2)
The landlord provided photographs of two heat pump remotes that were present at the beginning of the tenancy. These remotes were missing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord provided an original invoice for the purchase of two heat pump remotes for $204.70. The landlord’s claim for compensation for this amount is proven and granted. Reinstatement of kitchen and dining lights
Section 42(1)(a) and (b) RTA prohibits the tenant from affixing any fixture to the premises or making any renovation, alteration, or addition to the premises unless in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior written consent of the landlord.
The landlord advised the Tribunal that the tenant replaced the lights in the kitchen and dining area without the consent of the landlord. The photographs taken before and after the tenancy confirm that the tenant installed new lights in these areas. The landlord sought compensation of $615.95 to reinstate the original lighting.
I find that the tenant breached section 42(1)(a) and (b) by replacing the lighting in the kitchen and dining area without the consent of the landlord. The landlord provided an original invoice for $615.95 from Residential Electrical Services Ltd. The landlord’s claim for compensation for this amount is proven and granted.

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 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Removal of wall paint on multiple sites the property. b. Holes and marks in the kitchen and dining ceiling where the tenant replaced the lights. c. Nail holes in the door.
Some of the damage to the walls is fair wear and tear however, other damage is not. For example, in the tenant’s bedroom there are more than nine patches requiring plastering and painting on one wall. Similarly, the damage to the ceiling caused by the tenant removing and replacing the original light fittings is not fair wear and tear, nor are the large nail holes in the door.
The landlord sought compensation of $2,875.00 (including GST) for plastering and painting the walls, ceiling and door.
The property is relatively small, being a one-bedroom apartment with a dining/living area, kitchen and bathroom. The tenancy began on 17 June 2024 and ended on 4 May 2024 (11 months). Some allowance must be made for fair wear and tear over this time, particularly in terms of the tenant affixing photographs, paintings or mirrors to the walls to personalise the space.
The invoice of $2,875.00 from Bamboo Tea & Decorating Ltd seems relatively high considering the size of the property and extent of the damage, particularly when an allowance is made for fair wear and tear. No quotes from other trade companies were provided to support the reasonableness of the invoice. The invoice also did not provide detail of an hourly rate, how long each task took or the cost of materials.
Considering the above factors, I have granted the landlord’s claim for compensation to repair and paint the walls and ceiling at a reduced amount of $1,000.00, which seems a reasonable amount.
Because Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Raymond Henderson has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4908511 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 15 Bridgewater Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4908511 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 15 Bridgewater Road, Parnell, Auckland 1052

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Order

Reasons

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