What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4952674?

The tribunal order states: Gurdeep Singh Singh and Luisa Leafi must pay Ease Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4952674?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; To Walls And Ceilings: $1,850.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet - Tenant Contribution: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952674?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952674?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11128924-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4952674?

The tribunal order states: Gurdeep Singh Singh and Luisa Leafi must pay Ease Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4952674?

Cleaning: $207.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; To Walls And Ceilings: $1,850.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet - Tenant Contribution: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952674?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952674?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11128924-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

27 Whimbrel Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4952674 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4952674 — net $1,424.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$207.00	4. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Replace carpet - tenant contribution	$2,500.00	Replace carpet - tenant contribution
Repairs: to walls and ceilings	$1,850.00	Repairs: to walls and ceilings
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,424.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,424.00

Gurdeep Singh Singh and Luisa Leafi must pay Ease Property Management Limited As Agent For The C & D Family Trust $1,424.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,160.00 (6433244-011) to Ease Property Management Limited As Agent For The C & D Family Trust immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The photographs and invoice provided are evidence both that cleaning was required to return the property to a reasonably clean condition and that the amount awarded is fair.

While Mr Singh said the landlord should have advised him that additional cleaning was required, the law imposes no such requirement. It simply imposes an obligation on a tenant to return a property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. That obligation is clearly breached.

The amount ordered is considered reasonable and proved.

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 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: the carpets which were brand new at the commencement of the tenancy were extensively stained throughout the property. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, likely caused by a toddler’s spilled food and drink and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The paintwork on the walls and ceilings in two rooms was also damaged when a large number of stickers/adhesives were removed. That damage is considered careless, and the tenant is liable for the repair cost. There is an element of fair wear and tear with some of the other damaged paintwork. In a tenancy that goes for 2 ½ years and one of the occupants is a toddler, some minor paint damage is accepted. Most of this damage goes beyond that.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing fair compensation for the carpet replacement. The cost was $3,600 and accepting that the carpet had a 10 year life span, 25% depreciation means the $2,500 that the tenant must contribute is fair. I accept that the replacement carpet is of a lesser and not better quality than the carpet originally at the property.

The repainting has also been depreciated by 25% and a small further deduction made for fair wear and tear.

Essentially the amounts awarded ensure the landlord is returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and is not better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, as noted, I have taken into account the brand new condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Because Ease Property Management Limited As Agent For The C & D Family Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

No suppression order was requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4952674 — net $1,424.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$207.00	4. The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Replace carpet - tenant contribution	$2,500.00	Replace carpet - tenant contribution
Repairs: to walls and ceilings	$1,850.00	Repairs: to walls and ceilings
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,424.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,424.00

Order

Gurdeep Singh Singh and Luisa Leafi must pay Ease Property Management Limited As Agent For The C & D Family Trust $1,424.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,160.00 (6433244-011) to Ease Property Management Limited As Agent For The C & D Family Trust immediately.

Reasons

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

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The photographs and invoice provided are evidence both that cleaning was required to return the property to a reasonably clean condition and that the amount awarded is fair.
While Mr Singh said the landlord should have advised him that additional cleaning was required, the law imposes no such requirement. It simply imposes an obligation on a tenant to return a property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. That obligation is clearly breached.
The amount ordered is considered reasonable and proved.

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 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: the carpets which were brand new at the commencement of the tenancy were extensively stained throughout the property. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, likely caused by a toddler’s spilled food and drink and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The paintwork on the walls and ceilings in two rooms was also damaged when a large number of stickers/adhesives were removed. That damage is considered careless, and the tenant is liable for the repair cost. There is an element of fair wear and tear with some of the other damaged paintwork. In a tenancy that goes for 2 ½ years and one of the occupants is a toddler, some minor paint damage is accepted. Most of this damage goes beyond that.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing fair compensation for the carpet replacement. The cost was $3,600 and accepting that the carpet had a 10 year life span, 25% depreciation means the $2,500 that the tenant must contribute is fair. I accept that the replacement carpet is of a lesser and not better quality than the carpet originally at the property.
The repainting has also been depreciated by 25% and a small further deduction made for fair wear and tear.
Essentially the amounts awarded ensure the landlord is returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and is not better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, as noted, I have taken into account the brand new condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because Ease Property Management Limited As Agent For The C & D Family Trust has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
No suppression order was requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952674 — Property damage at 27 Whimbrel Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952674 — Property damage at 27 Whimbrel Road, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

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