What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5034235?

The tribunal order states: Jasmine Bishop must pay South Star Rentals 2020 Limited $2,656.11

How much money was awarded in case 5034235?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $223.10 awarded to landlord; Rent In Credit At End Of Tenancy: $131.43 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $1,093.75 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Waste Plug: $23.69 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034235?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034235?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11523679-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5034235?

The tribunal order states: Jasmine Bishop must pay South Star Rentals 2020 Limited $2,656.11

How much money was awarded in case 5034235?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $223.10 awarded to landlord; Rent In Credit At End Of Tenancy: $131.43 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $1,093.75 awarded to landlord; Replace Missing Waste Plug: $23.69 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034235?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034235?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11523679-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

325 Te Arai Point Road, Te Arai, RD 5, Wellsford 0975 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5034235 — Property damage

Reasons

Background

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034235 — net $2,656.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs to walls and painting	$1,500.00		Repairs to walls and painting
Repairs: Damage to carpet (insurance excess	$650.00		Repairs: Damage to carpet (insurance excess
Repairs: Damage to vinyl (insurance excess	$650.00		Repairs: Damage to vinyl (insurance excess
Repairs: Garage door	$1,093.75		Repairs: Garage door
Lawns	$115.00		Lawns
Water rates	$345.00		Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$223.10		Lock/key replacement
Replace missing waste plug	$23.69		Replace missing waste plug
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		39. The cost of filling the tanks is proven.
Rent in credit at end of tenancy		$131.43	Rent in credit at end of tenancy
Bond refunded to landlord		$1,840.00	Bond refunded to landlord
Total award	$4,627.54	$1,971.43
Net award	$2,656.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,656.11

The tenancy ended on 1 September 2024.

The landlord’s application seeks vacated repairs, change of locks, filling water tanks, and other costs.

The hearing took place in Whangarei on 5 March 2024. Ms Matamana represented the landlord at the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. Damage

Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the tenancy.

Tenants are liable for damage caused by themselves or by anyone who is at the property with their consent.

If a tenant causes careless damage, the tenant is liable for the repair cost, but their liability is limited to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess (if the landlord holds insurance that covers the damage) or the equivalent of four weeks’ rent (whichever is the lesser). This limitation does not apply to intentional damage.

The landlord’s claim seeks compensation for the following damage: a. Damage to walls. b. Paint on outside wall. c. Damage to the carpet. d. Damage to vinyl flooring. e. Replacement of the garage door motor twice – once in June 2024 and again at the end of the tenancy. f. Replacement of a missing waste plug. Holes in walls, paint on outside wall

Ms Matamana provided photographs showing damage to the walls throughout the house that the tenant had ‘patch’ repaired.

Ms Matamana also provided a photograph showing that some paint dark paint splashed on some of the exterior weatherboards.

I am satisfied that this damage happened during the period of this tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear.

The claim seeks $2,185.00 for repairs and painting per an invoice from Laeve Painting & Renovating Ld.

Although the tenant had attempted to repair the holes, the tenant’s repairs were not to a tradesman-like standard, and some additional work was necessary, as well as painting. A substantial amount of painting was necessary because of the number of partially repaired holes.

The invoice details other work that Laeve carried out in addition to repairs and painting – cleaning of all ceilings, cleaning of walls, and methamphetamine testing.

The tenant is liable for the cost of repairing the walls, and painting.

The invoice includes costs that are not part of the application (cleaning, methamphetamine testing) and depreciation must apply to the painting costs. The existing paint was approximately four years old at the end of the tenancy.

Applying these principles, I will award $1,500.00. Garage door

The roller garage door motor was replaced on11 June 2024.

I was provided with a copy of the invoice for the job, carried out by Dominator Garage Doors Rodney.

The description on the invoice is as follows: General service has been completed as detailed in the invoice. We have installed a “select” motor [next word illegible, possibly “because”] upon arrival we found that the rail was broken and the gears inside the older motor had [next word illegible, possibly “stopped”]

Tenants are liable for careless or intentional damage to the premises but are not liable for chattels wearing out through normal use. That is a maintenance cost that the landlord bears.

In terms of the June 2024 replacement, the evidence provided to me does not establish that the motor failed due to some careless or intentional action by the tenant. The description in the Dominator invoice does not suggest this, and there is no other evidence of tenant damage.

At the end of the tenancy, less than three months later, the motor was not working. Ms Matamana said that the Dominator technician told her that he found stones placed in the rails of the garage door. He believed that the door had been left in that state with the motor operating.

Although this is hearsay evidence, the balance of evidence supports Ms Matamana’s argument that the damage on this occasion was intentional damage by the tenant. The motor was new, and it is extremely unlikely to have failed after less than three months. The description of the September work in the Dominator invoice is less than detailed, but it suggests tenant damage: [First word illegible, possibly “Motor”] was assessed and not working due to damage caused Ms Matamana said that there was also intentional damage to the wiring, and the remotes were missing.

The proven cost of repairs in September 2024 is $1,093.75. The tenant is liable for this cost. Damage to carpet and vinyl

Ms Matamana provided photographs showing damage to the carpet (appears to be a burn) and vinyl (tear). The damage occurred during the tenancy and was noted at Ms Matamana’s inspections. The photographs also show that the carpet was very heavily stained.

The damage was covered by the landlord’s insurance, with an excess of $650.00 per event. The claim seeks the amount of the insurance excesses.

The damage occurred during the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear.

The tenant is liable for the repair cost, up to the amount of the insurance excess. Missing waste plug

The claim is proven. The cost of replacing the missing plug was $23.69. Lawns, change of locks, water

Tenants must leave the premises (inside and out) reasonably clean and tidy and return all keys at the end of the tenancy.

The lawns were overgrown at the end of the tenancy. The keys were not returned.

The cost of mowing the lawns and replacing the locks is proven.

The property is on tank water. There are two large plastic water tanks.

Ms Matamana said that at the end of the tenancy the owners discovered that holes had been drilled in the bottom of the tanks and both were empty.

The landlord is not seeking any repair or replacement costs, but is seeking the cost of refilling the tanks.

The tanks are obviously outside the house and unprotected, which raises the possibility that someone other than the tenant damaged them.

However, the standard of proof that applies in this Tribunal is no the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is the civil standard of “more likely than not”.

Given the other evidence of intentional damage to the premises (holes in walls, garage door motor) it is reasonable to infer, in the absence of any other evidence, that the tanks were also damaged by the tenant or by someone who was at the property with her consent.

The cost of filling the tanks is proven. Filing fee, bond, rent in credit

There was a small amount of rent in credit at the end of the tenancy.

The bond was released to the landlord.

The landlord has been successful in this application and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00.

The proven claim, after deduction of the bond and rent in credit, totals $2,656.11.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034235 — net $2,656.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs to walls and painting	$1,500.00		Repairs to walls and painting
Repairs: Damage to carpet (insurance excess	$650.00		Repairs: Damage to carpet (insurance excess
Repairs: Damage to vinyl (insurance excess	$650.00		Repairs: Damage to vinyl (insurance excess
Repairs: Garage door	$1,093.75		Repairs: Garage door
Lawns	$115.00		Lawns
Water rates	$345.00		Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$223.10		Lock/key replacement
Replace missing waste plug	$23.69		Replace missing waste plug
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		39. The cost of filling the tanks is proven.
Rent in credit at end of tenancy		$131.43	Rent in credit at end of tenancy
Bond refunded to landlord		$1,840.00	Bond refunded to landlord
Total award	$4,627.54	$1,971.43
Net award	$2,656.11
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,656.11

Order

Jasmine Bishop must pay South Star Rentals 2020 Limited $2,656.11 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 1 September 2024.
The landlord’s application seeks vacated repairs, change of locks, filling water tanks, and other costs.
The hearing took place in Whangarei on 5 March 2024. Ms Matamana represented the landlord at the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. Damage
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the tenancy.
Tenants are liable for damage caused by themselves or by anyone who is at the property with their consent.
If a tenant causes careless damage, the tenant is liable for the repair cost, but their liability is limited to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess (if the landlord holds insurance that covers the damage) or the equivalent of four weeks’ rent (whichever is the lesser). This limitation does not apply to intentional damage.
The landlord’s claim seeks compensation for the following damage: a. Damage to walls. b. Paint on outside wall. c. Damage to the carpet. d. Damage to vinyl flooring. e. Replacement of the garage door motor twice – once in June 2024 and again at the end of the tenancy. f. Replacement of a missing waste plug. Holes in walls, paint on outside wall
Ms Matamana provided photographs showing damage to the walls throughout the house that the tenant had ‘patch’ repaired.
Ms Matamana also provided a photograph showing that some paint dark paint splashed on some of the exterior weatherboards.
I am satisfied that this damage happened during the period of this tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
The claim seeks $2,185.00 for repairs and painting per an invoice from Laeve Painting & Renovating Ld.
Although the tenant had attempted to repair the holes, the tenant’s repairs were not to a tradesman-like standard, and some additional work was necessary, as well as painting. A substantial amount of painting was necessary because of the number of partially repaired holes.
The invoice details other work that Laeve carried out in addition to repairs and painting – cleaning of all ceilings, cleaning of walls, and methamphetamine testing.
The tenant is liable for the cost of repairing the walls, and painting.
The invoice includes costs that are not part of the application (cleaning, methamphetamine testing) and depreciation must apply to the painting costs. The existing paint was approximately four years old at the end of the tenancy.
Applying these principles, I will award $1,500.00. Garage door
The roller garage door motor was replaced on11 June 2024.
I was provided with a copy of the invoice for the job, carried out by Dominator Garage Doors Rodney.
The description on the invoice is as follows: General service has been completed as detailed in the invoice. We have installed a “select” motor [next word illegible, possibly “because”] upon arrival we found that the rail was broken and the gears inside the older motor had [next word illegible, possibly “stopped”]
Tenants are liable for careless or intentional damage to the premises but are not liable for chattels wearing out through normal use. That is a maintenance cost that the landlord bears.
In terms of the June 2024 replacement, the evidence provided to me does not establish that the motor failed due to some careless or intentional action by the tenant. The description in the Dominator invoice does not suggest this, and there is no other evidence of tenant damage.
At the end of the tenancy, less than three months later, the motor was not working. Ms Matamana said that the Dominator technician told her that he found stones placed in the rails of the garage door. He believed that the door had been left in that state with the motor operating.
Although this is hearsay evidence, the balance of evidence supports Ms Matamana’s argument that the damage on this occasion was intentional damage by the tenant. The motor was new, and it is extremely unlikely to have failed after less than three months. The description of the September work in the Dominator invoice is less than detailed, but it suggests tenant damage: [First word illegible, possibly “Motor”] was assessed and not working due to damage caused Ms Matamana said that there was also intentional damage to the wiring, and the remotes were missing.
The proven cost of repairs in September 2024 is $1,093.75. The tenant is liable for this cost. Damage to carpet and vinyl
Ms Matamana provided photographs showing damage to the carpet (appears to be a burn) and vinyl (tear). The damage occurred during the tenancy and was noted at Ms Matamana’s inspections. The photographs also show that the carpet was very heavily stained.
The damage was covered by the landlord’s insurance, with an excess of $650.00 per event. The claim seeks the amount of the insurance excesses.
The damage occurred during the tenancy and is beyond fair wear and tear.
The tenant is liable for the repair cost, up to the amount of the insurance excess. Missing waste plug
The claim is proven. The cost of replacing the missing plug was $23.69. Lawns, change of locks, water
Tenants must leave the premises (inside and out) reasonably clean and tidy and return all keys at the end of the tenancy.
The lawns were overgrown at the end of the tenancy. The keys were not returned.
The cost of mowing the lawns and replacing the locks is proven.
The property is on tank water. There are two large plastic water tanks.
Ms Matamana said that at the end of the tenancy the owners discovered that holes had been drilled in the bottom of the tanks and both were empty.
The landlord is not seeking any repair or replacement costs, but is seeking the cost of refilling the tanks.
The tanks are obviously outside the house and unprotected, which raises the possibility that someone other than the tenant damaged them.
However, the standard of proof that applies in this Tribunal is no the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is the civil standard of “more likely than not”.
Given the other evidence of intentional damage to the premises (holes in walls, garage door motor) it is reasonable to infer, in the absence of any other evidence, that the tanks were also damaged by the tenant or by someone who was at the property with her consent.
The cost of filling the tanks is proven. Filing fee, bond, rent in credit
There was a small amount of rent in credit at the end of the tenancy.
The bond was released to the landlord.
The landlord has been successful in this application and I must also award the landlord the filing fee of $27.00.
The proven claim, after deduction of the bond and rent in credit, totals $2,656.11.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034235 — Property damage at 325 Te Arai Point Road, Te Arai, RD 5, Wellsford 0975

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034235 — Property damage at 325 Te Arai Point Road, Te Arai, RD 5, Wellsford 0975

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions