What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5019535?

The tribunal order states: Frana Christensen-Ross to pay Finest Property Management Limited - As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5019535?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $235.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet Dining Room: $114.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Two Internal Doors: $584.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $498.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019535?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019535?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11236997-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5019535?

The tribunal order states: Frana Christensen-Ross to pay Finest Property Management Limited - As Agent

How much money was awarded in case 5019535?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $235.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpet Dining Room: $114.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Two Internal Doors: $584.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $498.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019535?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019535?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11236997-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

109 Farnborough Drive, Grandview Heights, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5019535 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5019535 — net $1,618.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$498.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$235.00	Lock/key replacement
Replacement garage remotes	$160.00	Replacement garage remotes
Replace two internal doors	$584.00	Replace two internal doors
Replace carpet dining room	$114.00	Replace carpet dining room
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,618.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,618.00

Order

Frana Christensen-Ross to pay Finest Property Management Limited - As Agent for MJR Investments Ltd $1,618.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,618.00 from the bond (6041644-011) to Finest Property Management Limited - As Agent for MJR Investments Ltd immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $642.00 (6041644-011) to Frana Christensen-Ross immediately.

Reasons

Mrs Ali appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 06 September 2019. The landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that they intended selling the property. The tenancy ended on 28 September 2024. The landlord filed their claim on the same day.
The landlord is seeking compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord claims that the tenant: i. Failed to leave the main bathroom reasonably clean ($373.75), ii. Failed to remove all rubbish ($498.00), iii. Failed to return the keys and two garage remote controls ($235.00 and $160.00), iv. Is responsible for damage to three internal doors ($875.00), v. Is responsible for damage to the carpet ($2,850.00), vi. Is responsible for damage to the wiring to the external unit of the heat pump ($402.50).
In brackets is the compensation sought by the landlord.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The property consists of four bedrooms, kitchen, open plan dining / lounge, a main bathroom, a separate toilet, an ensuite, a garage (which also contains the laundry), and a small garden shed.
Mrs Ali is the third landlord. There have been two changes of landlord, the first on 29 May 2023 and the second on 14 July 2023.
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) of the Act.
No photographs showing the property at the commencement of the tenancy have been produced. There is a pre tenancy checklist. The checklist was completed by the original landlord and then sent to the tenant who had seven days to indicate their agreement. The pre tenancy checklist records that both parties agree that the property has been “presented to them in a reasonable condition.” It is unsigned.
The landlord has also produced an inspection report which includes photographs completed by the second landlord on 19 June 2020. Cleaning
The landlord has produced photographs of the shower in the main bathroom, claiming these show a soap scum and grime build up on the grouting on the walls and the base, which they state was removed with cleaning. Apart from this, there are no other areas where the landlord alleges the tenant has failed to meet their obligations. The pre tenancy checklist records that the shower glass was “water stained” and that the base and lining had “soap scum staining.” The inspection report from 19 June 2020 notes “discolouring around the base of the tray, shower glass is stained”. Mrs Ali argues that the build-up shown in the end of tenancy photographs is worse than that described in the pre tenancy checklist.
Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the bathroom was in any worse condition than it was at the commencement. The claim for cleaning the bathroom is dismissed. Rubbish removal.
I am satisfied that the items of rubbish left at the property more likely than not belong to the tenant. These items include a child’s bike, a lawnmower (which the landlord states were inoperable), ski boots and poles left in the garden shed, a grocery trolley, an outdoor umbrella, and six car tyres left outside. The amount claimed includes disposal costs and is reasonable in the circumstances. Remotes
The tenant was provided with two garage remotes, which were not returned. The amount claimed to replace the remotes is reasonable and awarded. Keys
Mrs Ali states that at the end of the tenancy, she discovered the property unlocked. Shortly afterward one of the occupants delivered a set of keys for the front door, which did not work. Mrs Ali states she contacted the tenant and was informed they had been given the wrong keys. The keys provided to the tenant were not returned. The amount claimed to re-key the front door is awarded.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

To succeed with a claim for damage 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 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Carpet
Mrs Ali states that the tenant kept two dogs at the property without the consent of the landlord. The landlord alleges that the dogs caused damage to the carpet in the dining room and two bedrooms. Mrs Ali also states that the carpet smelt. The landlord has produced photographs purporting to show a stain in two bedrooms and a carpet tear in the dining room where the tiled kitchen area meets the carpet.
The landlord states the carpet in the hallway and the two other remaining bedrooms was not damaged but smelt. The landlord claims that to replace the carpet in only the affected rooms would have resulted in an unsightly mismatch. Consequently, the landlord replaced the carpet throughout the property. The landlord argues the tenant is liable for the total replacement cost, less deductions for betterment and depreciation.
The landlord made no attempt to remove the staining or address the odour they claim was present. Taking this into account and considering the photographic evidence, which consists of just three photographs, I am not satisfied that the carpet in the two bedrooms was in fact “damaged.” However, I am satisfied that the carpet in the dining room has been damaged and that this damage has more likely than not occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
The pre tenancy checklist and subsequent inspection report notes pre-existing damage to the carpet in the lounge in the form of paint marks. The carpet was also around 17 years old at the end of the tenancy. Carpet in residential rental properties has an estimated useful life span of between 10 – 12 years. The carpet in the dining room was, therefore, well past its useful life span and had pre-existing damage.
The invoice for replacing the carpet is not itemised. I divide the amount claimed by 5 (four bedrooms, lounge / dining room and hallway) which amounts to $570.00 per room. From this, I deduct 80% for betterment and depreciation and award the landlord $114.00 toward the cost of replacing the carpet in the dining room only. Doors
The landlord has produced photographs showing damaged and partially repaired doors. The landlord states the doors were unable to be repaired and required replacement. Initially, the landlord stated the photographs produced showed each door. However, analysis revealed that two of the photographs show the same door with identical damage. During the hearing, the owner provided the landlord with another photograph of a door which they claim was damaged. However, no damage is discernible.
The total amount to repair three doors is $875.00. Based on the evidence I am satisfied that two doors were damaged. I take as a starting point of $297.00 per door. I award the landlord $584.00 to replace the two doors, one in the hallway and one in a bedroom. Mrs Ali argues that no deduction should be made for betterment, and I accept this argument. Heat pump.
The landlord has produced photographs of the heat pump unit outside the house. The photographs show damage to a small area of plastic sleeving covering the wiring and the wall plug which has some plastic taped over it. The landlord claims that both have been damaged by a dog kept at the property.
The condition of the heat pump unit is not recorded in either the pre tenancy checklist or the inspection report from 19 June 2020. An animal may have caused the damage, it could also be attributed to fair wear and tear. Based on the evidence, I cannot rule out that the damage resulted from fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed. Costs
Because Finest Property Management Limited - As Agent for MJR Investments Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
There are no applications for name suppression and no orders are made.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5019535 — net $1,618.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$498.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$235.00	Lock/key replacement
Replacement garage remotes	$160.00	Replacement garage remotes
Replace two internal doors	$584.00	Replace two internal doors
Replace carpet dining room	$114.00	Replace carpet dining room
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,618.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,618.00

Order

Frana Christensen-Ross to pay Finest Property Management Limited - As Agent for MJR Investments Ltd $1,618.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,618.00 from the bond (6041644-011) to Finest Property Management Limited - As Agent for MJR Investments Ltd immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $642.00 (6041644-011) to Frana Christensen-Ross immediately.

Reasons

Mrs Ali appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The tenancy commenced on 06 September 2019. The landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that they intended selling the property. The tenancy ended on 28 September 2024. The landlord filed their claim on the same day.
The landlord is seeking compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord claims that the tenant: i. Failed to leave the main bathroom reasonably clean ($373.75), ii. Failed to remove all rubbish ($498.00), iii. Failed to return the keys and two garage remote controls ($235.00 and $160.00), iv. Is responsible for damage to three internal doors ($875.00), v. Is responsible for damage to the carpet ($2,850.00), vi. Is responsible for damage to the wiring to the external unit of the heat pump ($402.50).
In brackets is the compensation sought by the landlord.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”).

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The property consists of four bedrooms, kitchen, open plan dining / lounge, a main bathroom, a separate toilet, an ensuite, a garage (which also contains the laundry), and a small garden shed.
Mrs Ali is the third landlord. There have been two changes of landlord, the first on 29 May 2023 and the second on 14 July 2023.
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) of the Act.
No photographs showing the property at the commencement of the tenancy have been produced. There is a pre tenancy checklist. The checklist was completed by the original landlord and then sent to the tenant who had seven days to indicate their agreement. The pre tenancy checklist records that both parties agree that the property has been “presented to them in a reasonable condition.” It is unsigned.
The landlord has also produced an inspection report which includes photographs completed by the second landlord on 19 June 2020. Cleaning
The landlord has produced photographs of the shower in the main bathroom, claiming these show a soap scum and grime build up on the grouting on the walls and the base, which they state was removed with cleaning. Apart from this, there are no other areas where the landlord alleges the tenant has failed to meet their obligations. The pre tenancy checklist records that the shower glass was “water stained” and that the base and lining had “soap scum staining.” The inspection report from 19 June 2020 notes “discolouring around the base of the tray, shower glass is stained”. Mrs Ali argues that the build-up shown in the end of tenancy photographs is worse than that described in the pre tenancy checklist.
Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that the bathroom was in any worse condition than it was at the commencement. The claim for cleaning the bathroom is dismissed. Rubbish removal.
I am satisfied that the items of rubbish left at the property more likely than not belong to the tenant. These items include a child’s bike, a lawnmower (which the landlord states were inoperable), ski boots and poles left in the garden shed, a grocery trolley, an outdoor umbrella, and six car tyres left outside. The amount claimed includes disposal costs and is reasonable in the circumstances. Remotes
The tenant was provided with two garage remotes, which were not returned. The amount claimed to replace the remotes is reasonable and awarded. Keys
Mrs Ali states that at the end of the tenancy, she discovered the property unlocked. Shortly afterward one of the occupants delivered a set of keys for the front door, which did not work. Mrs Ali states she contacted the tenant and was informed they had been given the wrong keys. The keys provided to the tenant were not returned. The amount claimed to re-key the front door is awarded.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

To succeed with a claim for damage 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 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Carpet
Mrs Ali states that the tenant kept two dogs at the property without the consent of the landlord. The landlord alleges that the dogs caused damage to the carpet in the dining room and two bedrooms. Mrs Ali also states that the carpet smelt. The landlord has produced photographs purporting to show a stain in two bedrooms and a carpet tear in the dining room where the tiled kitchen area meets the carpet.
The landlord states the carpet in the hallway and the two other remaining bedrooms was not damaged but smelt. The landlord claims that to replace the carpet in only the affected rooms would have resulted in an unsightly mismatch. Consequently, the landlord replaced the carpet throughout the property. The landlord argues the tenant is liable for the total replacement cost, less deductions for betterment and depreciation.
The landlord made no attempt to remove the staining or address the odour they claim was present. Taking this into account and considering the photographic evidence, which consists of just three photographs, I am not satisfied that the carpet in the two bedrooms was in fact “damaged.” However, I am satisfied that the carpet in the dining room has been damaged and that this damage has more likely than not occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability.
The pre tenancy checklist and subsequent inspection report notes pre-existing damage to the carpet in the lounge in the form of paint marks. The carpet was also around 17 years old at the end of the tenancy. Carpet in residential rental properties has an estimated useful life span of between 10 – 12 years. The carpet in the dining room was, therefore, well past its useful life span and had pre-existing damage.
The invoice for replacing the carpet is not itemised. I divide the amount claimed by 5 (four bedrooms, lounge / dining room and hallway) which amounts to $570.00 per room. From this, I deduct 80% for betterment and depreciation and award the landlord $114.00 toward the cost of replacing the carpet in the dining room only. Doors
The landlord has produced photographs showing damaged and partially repaired doors. The landlord states the doors were unable to be repaired and required replacement. Initially, the landlord stated the photographs produced showed each door. However, analysis revealed that two of the photographs show the same door with identical damage. During the hearing, the owner provided the landlord with another photograph of a door which they claim was damaged. However, no damage is discernible.
The total amount to repair three doors is $875.00. Based on the evidence I am satisfied that two doors were damaged. I take as a starting point of $297.00 per door. I award the landlord $584.00 to replace the two doors, one in the hallway and one in a bedroom. Mrs Ali argues that no deduction should be made for betterment, and I accept this argument. Heat pump.
The landlord has produced photographs of the heat pump unit outside the house. The photographs show damage to a small area of plastic sleeving covering the wiring and the wall plug which has some plastic taped over it. The landlord claims that both have been damaged by a dog kept at the property.
The condition of the heat pump unit is not recorded in either the pre tenancy checklist or the inspection report from 19 June 2020. An animal may have caused the damage, it could also be attributed to fair wear and tear. Based on the evidence, I cannot rule out that the damage resulted from fair wear and tear. The claim is dismissed. Costs
Because Finest Property Management Limited - As Agent for MJR Investments Ltd has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
There are no applications for name suppression and no orders are made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019535 — Property damage at 109 Farnborough Drive, Grandview Heights, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019535 — Property damage at 109 Farnborough Drive, Grandview Heights, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions