What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5060869?

The tribunal order states: Sapna Bhatia to pay Inspire Real Estate Limited As Agent For Julia Valigore

How much money was awarded in case 5060869?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $291.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5060869?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5060869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11250953-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5060869?

The tribunal order states: Sapna Bhatia to pay Inspire Real Estate Limited As Agent For Julia Valigore

How much money was awarded in case 5060869?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $120.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $291.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5060869?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5060869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11250953-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 80 Shakespeare Road, Waltham, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5060869 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat 2, 80 Shakespeare Road, Waltham, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5060869 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5060869 — net $838.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$291.43	Rent arrears
Lawns and Garden work	$120.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Replace fridge lower door panel (insurance excess	$400.00	Repairs: Replace fridge lower door panel (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$838.43
Bond	$2,040.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$838.43

Claims and awards for application 5060869 — net $838.43 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $291.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Repairs: Replace fridge lower door panel (insurance excess

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Replace fridge lower door panel (insurance excess

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $838.43

Bond

Landlord $2,040.00

Dismissed claims

Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears Property damage Cleanliness

Order

Sapna Bhatia to pay Inspire Real Estate Limited As Agent For Julia Valigore $838.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 (5167182-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Inspire Real Estate Limited As Agent For Julia Valigore: $838.43 Sapna Bhatia: $1,201.57

Reasons

Ms Paterson and Ms Valigore attended for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 3 October 2024.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not dispute the rent arrears and the landlord also provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, being $291.43.

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.
In an email to the owner after the final inspection, the property manager said, “[e]verything has been left clean and tidy with chattels unharmed.”
On inspecting the property herself, the owner did not feel that this was accurate.
She considered that the cooktop and some supplied pans were not left reasonably clean and said she had spent two hours cleaning them. She accepted that the time spent may have been longer then necessary given her access, or lack of, to appropriate cleaning products.
The landlord claims $80.00 for the owner’s time spent cleaning these areas.
The property is the residence of the owner and was tenanted for a short period of just over four months.
It is often the case that a landlord wishes a property to be left to a higher standard than a tenant considers reasonably clean and tidy. This is likely to be especially so when it is the property owner’s own home.
The property manager considered the property left reasonably clean and tidy and the photographs support this. There is some evidence of a stain on one of the elements of the electric cook top.
The ingoing inspection photos also show some staining to this same element.
There were no photographs provided of the pots.
I consider that the tenant cleaned the cook top to a reasonably clean and tidy standard and have no evidence in relation to the pots.
The claim for the owner’s cleaning time is dismissed.
The landlord is claiming for garden and lawn work and provided an invoice in the sum of $120.00 to support the claim.
The outgoing inspection records that a gardener is to attend to the “lawns, gardens and edges” on 7 October and the cost is “to be deducted from bond”.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant accepted responsibility for this cost.
The amount for garden work ($120.00) is proved.

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 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.
The owner claims that there was damage caused during the tenancy to a door architrave, a curtain bracket and the oven front panel.
To my mind this damage is minor.
The damage to the door architrave is very small and likely caused by someone carrying an item through the door and bumping the architrave causing a slight scrape in the paint and extremely minor (if any) damage to the plaster.
The insurance assessor called upon by the owner described the damage caused by the bracket coming loose as “consistent with wear and tear as a result of fixing directly into the plaster board...”
The same assessor also described the damage to the oven as a “very minor indentation”.
It is difficult to see this oven damage except in a very close up photo taken on an angle. It is not visible in the photo taken from further away even when magnified multiple times.
I consider the damage caused by the curtain bracket coming loose, the minor oven dent and the slight damage to the door frame/architrave as either accidental or fair wear and tear.
Those claims are dismissed.
The owner also claimed the cost of an insurance excess in relation to damage to the front panel of the fridge.
A quotation was supplied from an appliance store detailing the cost to replace the door and the labour to fit the new door.
Although the Tribunal looks often upon quotations as less persuasive evidence than an invoice, in this case the quotation is detailed and was accepted as reasonable by the landlord’s insurance company.
This damage is visible in the photographs. There are multiple dents in the fridge. One is reasonably pronounced and is visible even in the photographs taken from further back in the kitchen.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The repair does not impact on the life expectancy of the appliance, and it is not necessary to allow for depreciation in these circumstances.
The amount ordered for the insurance excess for the fridge door replacement, being $400.00 is proved. Filing fee
As the applicant has been partly successful in their claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5060869 — net $838.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$291.43	Rent arrears
Lawns and Garden work	$120.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Replace fridge lower door panel (insurance excess	$400.00	Repairs: Replace fridge lower door panel (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$838.43
Bond	$2,040.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$838.43

Claims and awards for application 5060869 — net $838.43 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $291.43
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $120.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Repairs: Replace fridge lower door panel (insurance excess

Amount: $400.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Replace fridge lower door panel (insurance excess

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $838.43

Bond

Landlord $2,040.00

Dismissed claims

Cleaning

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Rent arrears Property damage Cleanliness

Order

Sapna Bhatia to pay Inspire Real Estate Limited As Agent For Julia Valigore $838.43 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,040.00 (5167182-012) immediately apportioned as follows: Inspire Real Estate Limited As Agent For Julia Valigore: $838.43 Sapna Bhatia: $1,201.57

Reasons

Ms Paterson and Ms Valigore attended for the landlord. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 3 October 2024.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant did not dispute the rent arrears and the landlord also provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, being $291.43.

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.
In an email to the owner after the final inspection, the property manager said, “[e]verything has been left clean and tidy with chattels unharmed.”
On inspecting the property herself, the owner did not feel that this was accurate.
She considered that the cooktop and some supplied pans were not left reasonably clean and said she had spent two hours cleaning them. She accepted that the time spent may have been longer then necessary given her access, or lack of, to appropriate cleaning products.
The landlord claims $80.00 for the owner’s time spent cleaning these areas.
The property is the residence of the owner and was tenanted for a short period of just over four months.
It is often the case that a landlord wishes a property to be left to a higher standard than a tenant considers reasonably clean and tidy. This is likely to be especially so when it is the property owner’s own home.
The property manager considered the property left reasonably clean and tidy and the photographs support this. There is some evidence of a stain on one of the elements of the electric cook top.
The ingoing inspection photos also show some staining to this same element.
There were no photographs provided of the pots.
I consider that the tenant cleaned the cook top to a reasonably clean and tidy standard and have no evidence in relation to the pots.
The claim for the owner’s cleaning time is dismissed.
The landlord is claiming for garden and lawn work and provided an invoice in the sum of $120.00 to support the claim.
The outgoing inspection records that a gardener is to attend to the “lawns, gardens and edges” on 7 October and the cost is “to be deducted from bond”.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant accepted responsibility for this cost.
The amount for garden work ($120.00) is proved.

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 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.
The owner claims that there was damage caused during the tenancy to a door architrave, a curtain bracket and the oven front panel.
To my mind this damage is minor.
The damage to the door architrave is very small and likely caused by someone carrying an item through the door and bumping the architrave causing a slight scrape in the paint and extremely minor (if any) damage to the plaster.
The insurance assessor called upon by the owner described the damage caused by the bracket coming loose as “consistent with wear and tear as a result of fixing directly into the plaster board...”
The same assessor also described the damage to the oven as a “very minor indentation”.
It is difficult to see this oven damage except in a very close up photo taken on an angle. It is not visible in the photo taken from further away even when magnified multiple times.
I consider the damage caused by the curtain bracket coming loose, the minor oven dent and the slight damage to the door frame/architrave as either accidental or fair wear and tear.
Those claims are dismissed.
The owner also claimed the cost of an insurance excess in relation to damage to the front panel of the fridge.
A quotation was supplied from an appliance store detailing the cost to replace the door and the labour to fit the new door.
Although the Tribunal looks often upon quotations as less persuasive evidence than an invoice, in this case the quotation is detailed and was accepted as reasonable by the landlord’s insurance company.
This damage is visible in the photographs. There are multiple dents in the fridge. One is reasonably pronounced and is visible even in the photographs taken from further back in the kitchen.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The repair does not impact on the life expectancy of the appliance, and it is not necessary to allow for depreciation in these circumstances.
The amount ordered for the insurance excess for the fridge door replacement, being $400.00 is proved. Filing fee
As the applicant has been partly successful in their claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5060869 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 80 Shakespeare Road, Waltham, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5060869 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 80 Shakespeare Road, Waltham, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the 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

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions