What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4987749?

The tribunal order states: Byung Suk Han and Sang Yong Han to pay Simon Clarke $363.95 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4987749?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $290.95 awarded to landlord; Repaint Garage Wall: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4987749?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4987749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11141020-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4987749?

The tribunal order states: Byung Suk Han and Sang Yong Han to pay Simon Clarke $363.95 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4987749?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $290.95 awarded to landlord; Repaint Garage Wall: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4987749?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4987749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11141020-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Dallimore Drive, Belfast, Christchurch 8051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4987749 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4987749 — net $363.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$290.95		Lawns and Garden work
Repaint garage wall	$100.00		Repaint garage wall
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$390.95	$27.00
Net award	$363.95
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$363.95

Order

Byung Suk Han and Sang Yong Han to pay Simon Clarke $363.95 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (6467236005) immediately apportioned as follows: Simon Clarke: $363.95 Byung Suk Han and Sang Yong Han: $2,156.05
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr and Mrs Han had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 19 May 2023 and ending on 19 May 2024. During the period of the tenancy the tenancy was managed by Gold Property Management Ltd Quinovic (Harcourts). Mr and Mrs Han explained that they had caused some damage to one wall of the garage and they had repaired the damage using paint they found in the garage (which they assumed was the correct paint to use).
On 20 May 2024 Harcourts completed an end of tenancy inspection of the premises. Harcourts told Mr and Mrs Han that they were happy with the condition of the premises with the exception of the gardens which required additional weeding and the use of the wrong paint on the garage wall. Mr and Mrs Han agreed that Harcourts could arrange a gardener to complete the weeding and have the wall repainted and the costs could be taken from the bond. Harcourts arranged for the gardening work to be completed at a cost of $290.95 but, before the garage wall painting work was completed, Mr Clarke took over management of the tenancy.
After Mr Clarke took over a dispute arose over payment of the bond, in particular, Mr Clarke claimed that the tenants were liable for additional damage not identified by Harcourts. The dispute could not be resolved so on 14 July 2024 Mr and Mrs Han applied for payment of the bond (less the cost to remedy the garage wall and the gardens). Mr Clarke filed a cross application for one day’s rent ($90.00), and costs to: i.Tidy the gardens: $290.95 ii.Repair and paint all four garage walls, a wall in bedroom 2, the ceiling and a wall in the lounge: $1,150.00 (based on a quote) iii.Repair a broken fence paling: $138.00 (based on a quote)
As mentioned, Mr and Mrs Han accept the claim for gardening costs and for the repainting of one wall in the garage.

Are the tenants liable for the rent claimed?

The tenancy was due to end at midnight on Sunday 19 May 2024. The tenants vacated the premises that day and the next morning (Monday 20 May) they took the key to Harcourts’ office.
Mr Clarke claims that the tenancy does not end until the tenant hands over the keys. He therefore claims that the tenancy did not end until midnight on Monday 20 May and the tenants therefore owe an additional day’s rent.
This claim is ill founded. The tenancy ends when the tenants vacate the premises not when keys are returned. Tenants are required to hand over the keys at the end of the tenancy and, if a tenant fails to do so, the landlord may have the locks changed and claim the cost from the tenant. However, it does not entitle the landlord to rent until the keys are returned.
It is not clear what more Mr Clarke expected Mr and Mrs Han to do here. They were entitled to possession of the premises (and therefore the keys to it) until midnight on 19 May. It is unreasonable to expect them to return the keys at midnight on 19 May or at any other time on 19 May given there was no ability for them to do so until Harcourts’ office opened the next day. It is also clear from evidence provided by Mr and Mrs Han that Harcourts instructed them to return the keys to them the following day.
The claim for a days’ rent is therefore dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Carelessness is not defined in the Act but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, exercised the degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. Generally, if a tenant succeeds in showing that the damage was not intentional or careless, then the explanation for its existence is likely to be considered to be fair wear and tear. However, this is not to suggest that the landlord is released from his or her obligation to show that the damage was over and above fair wear and tear.
The standard of proof or level of evidence required of both parties is on “the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the party who has the onus of proof must establish with evidence provided to the Tribunal that their claim is “more probable than not” or “more likely than not”. Wall damage
Mr Clarke claims that the damage to the garage walls (other than the wall accepted by Mr and Ms Han) are “chip marks” and “scrapes”. He provided photographs in support of his claim.
I am satisfied that the damage to the garage walls is more likely than not a result of fair wear and tear. The photographs show minor black marks or scrapes that could be expected to occur simply due to ordinary use of the garage as a garage. I am therefore not satisfied that Mr Clarke has established that the damage claimed is more than fair wear and tear. The claim to repaint all four walls in the garage is therefore dismissed.
However, as mentioned, Mr and Mrs Han accept the claim to repair the one wall which they had attempted to repair but had used the wrong paint. The total amount quoted to repair and paint all four garage walls is $450.00. Doing the best I can on the evidence provided I consider $100.00 reasonable to compensate Mr Clarke for the painting of the one wall.
Mr Clarke claims that the bedroom wall was damaged by black scuff type marks and Mr and Mrs Han had also patched some areas using the wrong paint. He claims that Mr and Mrs Han damaged a lounge wall and had patch painted an area of the ceiling again using the wrong paint. He said that the Harcourts property manager had completed the inspection on 20 May in low light and therefore would not have noticed the paint patches.
The damage to the walls shown in the photographs are again minor and mostly very small surface marks, some of which are barely noticeable in the photographs provided. I therefore have no hesitation in finding that these marks also fall into the category of fair wear and tear and the claim for their repair is dismissed.
Mr and Mrs Han deny that they painted the walls and ceiling other than the garage wall and they gave me no reason to doubt their evidence.
The photographs of the areas claimed to have been patch painted by Mr and Mrs Han do not clearly show that they have been painted using the wrong paint. These photographs can be compared to the photograph of the garage wall which clearly show patches of different coloured paint. Thus, I am not satisfied that Mr Clarke has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it is more likely than not that Mr and Mrs Han did patch paint the bedroom wall and lounge ceiling and this claim is also dismissed. Fence
Mr Clarke claims the cost to repair one paling of the wooden boundary fence which he claims was broken by Mr or Mrs Han or others at the premises with their permission.
Mr and Mrs Han deny breaking the paling saying that they were unaware of the damage until Mr Clarke made his claim.
This claim is dismissed because I am not satisfied that Mr Clarke has established that it was more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy or was caused by Mr or Mrs Han or others at the premises with their permission.
The photograph of the damage was taken by Mr Clarke on 25 May, five days after the tenancy ended, and three days after Mr Clarke moved into the premises. It is therefore possible that it occurred after the tenancy ended. The condition of the fence is also not noted on the pre tenancy inspection report completed by Harcourts and not recorded by Harcourts in the end of tenancy inspection report dated 20 May. Mr Clarke claims that the broken paling was hidden behind a Council rubbish bin when Harcourts completed the inspection, but he then referred to a photo attached to the report which he says shows the damaged paling beside the bin. The photograph does not show the damaged claimed however I accept that it is too small to show the paling clearly.
Moreover, even if Mr Clarke had established that the damage occurred during the tenancy, the photograph of the damage (with the broken part of the paling being pushed towards Mr Clark’s property) supports that it is likely the damage was caused by an impact from the other side of the fence by someone other than Mr or Mrs Han or by others on the premises with their permission. Tribunal application fee
Mr and Mrs Han have been wholly successful in their claim for payment of the bond less the costs to repair the garage wall and tidy the gardens. They are therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee paid by them.
Mr Clarke has been mostly unsuccessful in his claims (succeeding only with orders for the claims that were agreed to by Mr and Mrs Han). I therefore do not consider this an appropriate case to award payment of the fee paid by him. Suppression
Mr Clarke applied, in his application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
However, Mr Clarke has been mostly unsuccessful in his claims. His application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4987749 — net $363.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$290.95		Lawns and Garden work
Repaint garage wall	$100.00		Repaint garage wall
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$390.95	$27.00
Net award	$363.95
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$363.95

Order

Byung Suk Han and Sang Yong Han to pay Simon Clarke $363.95 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 (6467236005) immediately apportioned as follows: Simon Clarke: $363.95 Byung Suk Han and Sang Yong Han: $2,156.05
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr and Mrs Han had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 19 May 2023 and ending on 19 May 2024. During the period of the tenancy the tenancy was managed by Gold Property Management Ltd Quinovic (Harcourts). Mr and Mrs Han explained that they had caused some damage to one wall of the garage and they had repaired the damage using paint they found in the garage (which they assumed was the correct paint to use).
On 20 May 2024 Harcourts completed an end of tenancy inspection of the premises. Harcourts told Mr and Mrs Han that they were happy with the condition of the premises with the exception of the gardens which required additional weeding and the use of the wrong paint on the garage wall. Mr and Mrs Han agreed that Harcourts could arrange a gardener to complete the weeding and have the wall repainted and the costs could be taken from the bond. Harcourts arranged for the gardening work to be completed at a cost of $290.95 but, before the garage wall painting work was completed, Mr Clarke took over management of the tenancy.
After Mr Clarke took over a dispute arose over payment of the bond, in particular, Mr Clarke claimed that the tenants were liable for additional damage not identified by Harcourts. The dispute could not be resolved so on 14 July 2024 Mr and Mrs Han applied for payment of the bond (less the cost to remedy the garage wall and the gardens). Mr Clarke filed a cross application for one day’s rent ($90.00), and costs to: i.Tidy the gardens: $290.95 ii.Repair and paint all four garage walls, a wall in bedroom 2, the ceiling and a wall in the lounge: $1,150.00 (based on a quote) iii.Repair a broken fence paling: $138.00 (based on a quote)
As mentioned, Mr and Mrs Han accept the claim for gardening costs and for the repainting of one wall in the garage.

Are the tenants liable for the rent claimed?

The tenancy was due to end at midnight on Sunday 19 May 2024. The tenants vacated the premises that day and the next morning (Monday 20 May) they took the key to Harcourts’ office.
Mr Clarke claims that the tenancy does not end until the tenant hands over the keys. He therefore claims that the tenancy did not end until midnight on Monday 20 May and the tenants therefore owe an additional day’s rent.
This claim is ill founded. The tenancy ends when the tenants vacate the premises not when keys are returned. Tenants are required to hand over the keys at the end of the tenancy and, if a tenant fails to do so, the landlord may have the locks changed and claim the cost from the tenant. However, it does not entitle the landlord to rent until the keys are returned.
It is not clear what more Mr Clarke expected Mr and Mrs Han to do here. They were entitled to possession of the premises (and therefore the keys to it) until midnight on 19 May. It is unreasonable to expect them to return the keys at midnight on 19 May or at any other time on 19 May given there was no ability for them to do so until Harcourts’ office opened the next day. It is also clear from evidence provided by Mr and Mrs Han that Harcourts instructed them to return the keys to them the following day.
The claim for a days’ rent is therefore dismissed.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Carelessness is not defined in the Act but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, exercised the degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. Generally, if a tenant succeeds in showing that the damage was not intentional or careless, then the explanation for its existence is likely to be considered to be fair wear and tear. However, this is not to suggest that the landlord is released from his or her obligation to show that the damage was over and above fair wear and tear.
The standard of proof or level of evidence required of both parties is on “the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the party who has the onus of proof must establish with evidence provided to the Tribunal that their claim is “more probable than not” or “more likely than not”. Wall damage
Mr Clarke claims that the damage to the garage walls (other than the wall accepted by Mr and Ms Han) are “chip marks” and “scrapes”. He provided photographs in support of his claim.
I am satisfied that the damage to the garage walls is more likely than not a result of fair wear and tear. The photographs show minor black marks or scrapes that could be expected to occur simply due to ordinary use of the garage as a garage. I am therefore not satisfied that Mr Clarke has established that the damage claimed is more than fair wear and tear. The claim to repaint all four walls in the garage is therefore dismissed.
However, as mentioned, Mr and Mrs Han accept the claim to repair the one wall which they had attempted to repair but had used the wrong paint. The total amount quoted to repair and paint all four garage walls is $450.00. Doing the best I can on the evidence provided I consider $100.00 reasonable to compensate Mr Clarke for the painting of the one wall.
Mr Clarke claims that the bedroom wall was damaged by black scuff type marks and Mr and Mrs Han had also patched some areas using the wrong paint. He claims that Mr and Mrs Han damaged a lounge wall and had patch painted an area of the ceiling again using the wrong paint. He said that the Harcourts property manager had completed the inspection on 20 May in low light and therefore would not have noticed the paint patches.
The damage to the walls shown in the photographs are again minor and mostly very small surface marks, some of which are barely noticeable in the photographs provided. I therefore have no hesitation in finding that these marks also fall into the category of fair wear and tear and the claim for their repair is dismissed.
Mr and Mrs Han deny that they painted the walls and ceiling other than the garage wall and they gave me no reason to doubt their evidence.
The photographs of the areas claimed to have been patch painted by Mr and Mrs Han do not clearly show that they have been painted using the wrong paint. These photographs can be compared to the photograph of the garage wall which clearly show patches of different coloured paint. Thus, I am not satisfied that Mr Clarke has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it is more likely than not that Mr and Mrs Han did patch paint the bedroom wall and lounge ceiling and this claim is also dismissed. Fence
Mr Clarke claims the cost to repair one paling of the wooden boundary fence which he claims was broken by Mr or Mrs Han or others at the premises with their permission.
Mr and Mrs Han deny breaking the paling saying that they were unaware of the damage until Mr Clarke made his claim.
This claim is dismissed because I am not satisfied that Mr Clarke has established that it was more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy or was caused by Mr or Mrs Han or others at the premises with their permission.
The photograph of the damage was taken by Mr Clarke on 25 May, five days after the tenancy ended, and three days after Mr Clarke moved into the premises. It is therefore possible that it occurred after the tenancy ended. The condition of the fence is also not noted on the pre tenancy inspection report completed by Harcourts and not recorded by Harcourts in the end of tenancy inspection report dated 20 May. Mr Clarke claims that the broken paling was hidden behind a Council rubbish bin when Harcourts completed the inspection, but he then referred to a photo attached to the report which he says shows the damaged paling beside the bin. The photograph does not show the damaged claimed however I accept that it is too small to show the paling clearly.
Moreover, even if Mr Clarke had established that the damage occurred during the tenancy, the photograph of the damage (with the broken part of the paling being pushed towards Mr Clark’s property) supports that it is likely the damage was caused by an impact from the other side of the fence by someone other than Mr or Mrs Han or by others on the premises with their permission. Tribunal application fee
Mr and Mrs Han have been wholly successful in their claim for payment of the bond less the costs to repair the garage wall and tidy the gardens. They are therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee paid by them.
Mr Clarke has been mostly unsuccessful in his claims (succeeding only with orders for the claims that were agreed to by Mr and Mrs Han). I therefore do not consider this an appropriate case to award payment of the fee paid by him. Suppression
Mr Clarke applied, in his application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
However, Mr Clarke has been mostly unsuccessful in his claims. His application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4987749 — Tenancy dispute at 14 Dallimore Drive, Belfast, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4987749 — Tenancy dispute at 14 Dallimore Drive, Belfast, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the rent claimed?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the rent claimed?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions