What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4979089?

The tribunal order states: David Jeffs and Nguyen Thi Kim Ngoc must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4979089?

Cleaning: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cabinetry: $2,242.50 awarded to landlord; Walls: $632.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4979089?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4979089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11184407-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4979089?

The tribunal order states: David Jeffs and Nguyen Thi Kim Ngoc must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4979089?

Cleaning: $552.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Cabinetry: $2,242.50 awarded to landlord; Walls: $632.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4979089?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4979089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11184407-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4D, 15 Hopetoun Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4979089 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4979089 — net $464.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$552.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Walls	$632.50	Repairs: Walls
Repairs: Cabinetry	$2,242.50	Repairs: Cabinetry
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$464.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$464.00

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

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 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.

The Tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The Landlord provided the outgoing inspection report and an invoice for cleaning, including carpet cleaning due to multiple stains. The Landlord stated that the Tenant had agreed to the cleaning costs during mediation.

The Tenant contested the cleaning costs, arguing they were excessive based on his estimation of the hourly rate and the time required for cleaning.

In considering the evidence such as the invoices and outgoing inspection report, the Tribunal found the Landlord’s claimed cleaning costs to be reasonable. The charges included both carpet cleaning and general cleaning, and the Tribunal deemed the costs appropriate.

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: wall damage and cabinetry damage.

The Landlord submitted the property had significant wall damage, including structural damage and ripped paint. The Landlord provided inspection reports and repair invoices, showing the damage occurred during the Tenant’s tenancy.

The Tenant claimed that the commercial strength of the front door caused damage to the walls and the handle. He also admitted to installing hooks that damaged the paint but considered it fair wear and tear after three years. The Tenant expressed dissatisfaction with the Landlord repairing the property without consulting him about the exact costs and was only willing to pay a portion of the repair costs.

The Landlord explained the door was strong for fire safety and clarified they only claimed part of the actual repair costs.

The Landlord also claimed water damage to kitchen cabinets, which required replacement due to its extent and feedback from property marketing.

The Tenant argued the damage to the kitchen cabinets was due to factors outside his control such as excess moisture in the property. He had wiped the cabinets but that would not have caused this damage. While the Tenant agreed to pay for repairs, he did not receive competitive quotes and believed $1000 was sufficient for the work.

The Landlord submitted at mediation, the Tenant agreed to pay for the cabinet repairs but disputed the repair costs, claiming he had not received quotes.

In considering the evidence, the Tenant was given an opportunity to provide alternative quotes to dispute the costs the Landlord claimed however they did not present any contrary evidence. The Landlord on the other hand provided sufficient documentation to prove the costs, and the Tribunal finds the amounts claimed to be reasonable.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the amounts ordered are proved. Bond claim

The Tenant claimed he paid $3040 for the bond, but the Bond Centre records showed only $2990. This issue was not part of his original application, so the Tribunal was not required to determine it but allowed the Tenant to submit further evidence within a set timeframe.

The Landlord was willing to review any evidence provided by the Tenant regarding the bond amount.

The Tenant submitted email correspondence showing he paid $1115. 00 but this did not clarify that it was the source of the additional bond payment. The email did not specifically refer to this being part of the bond.

The Landlord stated that the entire $1115.00 was directed toward the rent.

The Tenant submitted more evidence a few weeks later, however the Tribunal declines to consider this as it was filed out of time.

In considering the evidence, the Tribunal found that the Tenant failed to prove his claim that he had paid more than the recorded bond amount.

For this reason, the claim regarding the bond payment is dismissed.

As the Landlord has been successful in their application, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4979089 — net $464.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$552.00	Cleaning
Repairs: Walls	$632.50	Repairs: Walls
Repairs: Cabinetry	$2,242.50	Repairs: Cabinetry
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$464.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$464.00