Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4924673 — Property damage at 11 Taiko Street, Horahora, Whangarei 0110
Decided 12 Nov 2024 · Published 12 Nov 2024 · Application 4924673
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
Order
- Prasanth Vasavan and Anuja Mohan to pay Whangarei Real Estate Limited t/as Harcourts Just Rentals (as agent for Clayton Investments Ltd) $1,749.97 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (5796658-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Whangarei Real Estate Limited T/A Harcourts Just Rentals: $1,749.97 Prasanth Vasavan and Anuja Mohan:
- 03
Reasons
Background
- The tenancy ended on 12 March 2024.
- The tenants’ application seeks refund of the bond.
- The landlord’s application seeks various end of tenancy costs.
- The hearing took place by phone on 6 November 2024. Both parties participated in the hearing. Ms Te Raki represented the landlord.
- The tenants accepted the claim for water rates, repairs to the lounge wall, and replacement of the end cap for the dishwasher pipe. The tenants disputed the lawnmowing part of the lawnmowing and garden tidy up claim. At the hearing the parties agree to a figure of $140.00 for gardening work.
- The disputed parts of the landlord’s claim are: a. Replacement of five blown bulbs including heat lamps in the bathroom. b. Replacement of carpet in the lounge. c. Replacement of the kitchen bench. Replacement of bulbs
- Tenants are not liable for to pay for any costs except where specifically provided for in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). 1
- Tenants are not liable for “fair wear and tear”. 2 Fair wear and tear is the idea that all chattels have a life expectancy, and things wear out through ordinary use.
- Tenants are liable for damage that they intentionally or carelessly cause. 3
- There is no suggestion that the tenants carelessly or intentionally damaged the lightbulbs in the house. They have worn out through ordinary use. This is fair wear and tear, for which the tenants are not legally liable.
- This part of the landlord’s claim must be dismissed. 1 Section 49A(1) RTA 2 Section 49A(2) RTA 3 Section 49B RTA Lounge carpet
- Ms Te Raki said that there are two large stains on the carpet in the lounge, which occurred during this tenancy.
- Professional cleaning did not remove the stains.
- The claim seeks the cost of replacing the carpet in the lounge.
- Mr Vasavan and Ms Mohan said that there were marks and stains on the carpet at the beginning of the tenancy. They acknowledged that some additional stains occurred during the tenancy, which they described as minor. They argued that it is not necessary for the landlord to replace the carpet.
- The tenancy ended in March. The property has been re-tenanted. The landlord has not replaced the carpet in the lounge.
- The landlord did not provide me with any photographs of the lounge carpet.
- The tenants provided photographs from the beginning of their tenancy (showing some small stains on the carpet), and photographs from the end of the tenancy after the carpet was cleaned. The tenants end of tenancy photographs do not show a ‘close up’ view of the carpets, but the photographs do not show any obvious stains in the lounge.
- The evidence provided does not show that the tenants stained the lounge carpet to the extent that replacement is justified.
- On the basis that the tenants acknowledged some minor stains during their tenancy, and in the absence of any other evidence, I will award compensation of $150.00. Kitchen benchtop
- The claim seeks the cost of replacing the benchtop (to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess), due to multiple burn marks.
- Ms Te Raki said that there were five separate burn marks on the benchtop.
- The tenants acknowledged one burn mark, but argued that the extent of damage does not justify replacement of the benchtop.
- Ms Te Raki provided before and after photographs of the benchtop. The photographs show that the following damage occurred during this tenancy: a. A large circular mark, consistent with a hot pot being placed on the bench, to the left of the sink. The circular mark, which is white, has some dark staining inside the ‘ring’, consistent with burning. b. A similar large circular mark on the ‘return’ side of the kitchen bench. c. Some dark marks / stains on the right hand side of the sink.
- The damage is beyond fair wear and tenant. The tenants are liable for this damage.
- I accept that the damage cannot be repaired.
- The damage affects the look of the benchtop, but it does not affect its functioning. The benchtop still works as a benchtop.
- Replacement of the benchtop is not justified.
- The landlords are entitled to compensation reflecting the detriment that they have suffered, which is that the benchtop now has very visible and unattractive marks on it.
- This type of loss is inherently difficult to quantify, but the amount of compensation must be significant enough to reflect the fact that there is not just one large visible mark, but several.
- I will award compensation of $750.00. Filing fee, bond
- Both parties have been successful in their applications and both are entitled to be awarded the filing fee.
- The landlord will receive $1,749.97 from the bond. The balance will be released to the tenants.