How much money was awarded in case 5019389?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $632.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019389?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11240571-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5019389?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $632.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019389?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11240571-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit 5, 58 Queens Avenue, Frankton, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5019389 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5019389?

The tribunal order states: Dalbeer Singh and Deepal Prasad to pay Executive Property Managers Limited

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5019389 — net $659.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wall repairs and painting	$632.50	Wall repairs and painting
Filing Fee	$27.00	Filing Fee
Net award	$659.50
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$659.50

Dalbeer Singh and Deepal Prasad to pay Executive Property Managers Limited as Agent for Abbott & Rego $659.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6415346-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Executive Property Managers Limited as Agent for Abbott & Rego : $659.50 Dalbeer Singh and Deepal Prasad: $1,740.50

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Mr Barker attended for the landlords. Mr Singh attended for the tenants.

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

The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.

The landlord claims $632.50 being the estimated cost of repairs and touch-up painting to walls and ceiling.

The tenants accept that there was some wall damage to the premises during the tenancy. They deny responsibility for ceiling damage and suggest that it may have been caused by the tenants after them.

They say that wall damage at the corner of two walls at the top of the stairs is fair wear and tear.

I find that the ceiling damage likely occurred during the tenancy. The landlords say that it was found at the end of the tenancy before the new tenants moved in. Like the other damage, there has been an attempt to repair it. It is likely that the repair was completed at the same as the other repairs. It is to a similar standard.

I find that the damage to the corner wall is beyond fair and tear. The tenants have tried to repair it which suggests that they accepted that it was their responsibility. Having tried unsuccessfully to repair it, they are responsible for making it good in any case.

The tenants said that they asked the landlords what colour paint to use on the damaged areas and they were given the correct name of the paint colour. They bought the paint and applied it, but it did not match the existing paint because it was not low sheen. The tenants claim that the mismatch is the landlords’ fault and so they should not be responsible for correcting it.

I don’t agree. It was the tenants’ responsibility to make good the damage. They could do that themselves or employ a professional painter. They chose to do it themselves. Either way the work had to be completed to a reasonable standard. The landlords gave the correct paint colour. They were not obliged to do more than that. If the tenants did not have the experience or knowledge to carry out the work correctly, they should have employed a professional.

In any case the repairs themselves were unsatisfactory. Even if the tenants had applied the correct paint, there was still a need to make good the repair and repaint.

I find therefore that the repair and painting of the walls and ceiling as claimed by the landlords is the tenants’ responsibility.

I am satisfied that the landlords’ estimate for the work is reasonable. They are not claiming for repainting the entirety of the affected walls – just for touching them up.

I have therefore awarded the claim in full.

The landlords have succeeded and so I have awarded them the filing fee.

The bond will be split to give effect to my finding.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5019389 — net $659.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wall repairs and painting	$632.50	Wall repairs and painting
Filing Fee	$27.00	Filing Fee
Net award	$659.50
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$659.50

Order

Dalbeer Singh and Deepal Prasad to pay Executive Property Managers Limited as Agent for Abbott & Rego $659.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6415346-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Executive Property Managers Limited as Agent for Abbott & Rego : $659.50 Dalbeer Singh and Deepal Prasad: $1,740.50

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Mr Barker attended for the landlords. Mr Singh attended for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
The landlord claims $632.50 being the estimated cost of repairs and touch-up painting to walls and ceiling.
The tenants accept that there was some wall damage to the premises during the tenancy. They deny responsibility for ceiling damage and suggest that it may have been caused by the tenants after them.
They say that wall damage at the corner of two walls at the top of the stairs is fair wear and tear.
I find that the ceiling damage likely occurred during the tenancy. The landlords say that it was found at the end of the tenancy before the new tenants moved in. Like the other damage, there has been an attempt to repair it. It is likely that the repair was completed at the same as the other repairs. It is to a similar standard.
I find that the damage to the corner wall is beyond fair and tear. The tenants have tried to repair it which suggests that they accepted that it was their responsibility. Having tried unsuccessfully to repair it, they are responsible for making it good in any case.
The tenants said that they asked the landlords what colour paint to use on the damaged areas and they were given the correct name of the paint colour. They bought the paint and applied it, but it did not match the existing paint because it was not low sheen. The tenants claim that the mismatch is the landlords’ fault and so they should not be responsible for correcting it.
I don’t agree. It was the tenants’ responsibility to make good the damage. They could do that themselves or employ a professional painter. They chose to do it themselves. Either way the work had to be completed to a reasonable standard. The landlords gave the correct paint colour. They were not obliged to do more than that. If the tenants did not have the experience or knowledge to carry out the work correctly, they should have employed a professional.
In any case the repairs themselves were unsatisfactory. Even if the tenants had applied the correct paint, there was still a need to make good the repair and repaint.
I find therefore that the repair and painting of the walls and ceiling as claimed by the landlords is the tenants’ responsibility.
I am satisfied that the landlords’ estimate for the work is reasonable. They are not claiming for repainting the entirety of the affected walls – just for touching them up.
I have therefore awarded the claim in full.
The landlords have succeeded and so I have awarded them the filing fee.
The bond will be split to give effect to my finding.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019389 — Property damage at Unit 5, 58 Queens Avenue, Frankton, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019389 — Property damage at Unit 5, 58 Queens Avenue, Frankton, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions