What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5091676?

The tribunal order states: Remsia Rashiti to pay Rasmila Ristic Milosavljevic $349.89 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5091676?

Cleaning: $71.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $108.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $30.24 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5091676?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5091676?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12112824-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5091676?

The tribunal order states: Remsia Rashiti to pay Rasmila Ristic Milosavljevic $349.89 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5091676?

Cleaning: $71.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $108.14 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $30.24 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5091676?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5091676?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12112824-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 43 Taioma Crescent, Te Atatu Peninsula, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5091676 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5091676 — net $349.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates Oct, Nov 2024	$108.14		Water rates Oct, Nov 2024
Repairs walls and laundry door-jamb	$200.00		Repairs walls and laundry door-jamb
Carpet Cleaning	$71.99		Carpet Cleaning
Water rates adjustment Oct 2022 – Nov 2025		$30.24	Water rates adjustment Oct 2022 – Nov 2025
Total award	$380.13	$30.24
Net award	$349.89
Bond	$1,650.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$349.89

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5091676 — net $349.89 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates Oct, Nov 2024	$108.14		Water rates Oct, Nov 2024
Repairs walls and laundry door-jamb	$200.00		Repairs walls and laundry door-jamb
Carpet Cleaning	$71.99		Carpet Cleaning
Water rates adjustment Oct 2022 – Nov 2025		$30.24	Water rates adjustment Oct 2022 – Nov 2025
Total award	$380.13	$30.24
Net award	$349.89
Bond	$1,650.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$349.89

Order

Remsia Rashiti to pay Rasmila Ristic Milosavljevic $349.89 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,650.00 (5012558-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Rasmila Ristic Milosavljevic: $349.89 Remsia Rashiti: $1,300.11

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Stevan Milosavljevic and Rasmila Milosavljevic attended in person as the landlord. The tenant was represented by Craig Warrender who attended by video conference.
This is a cross application.
The landlord has applied for compensation, damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for the landlord unlawfully entering the premises, failing to appoint an agent whilst overseas and reimbursement of overpaid water rates. The tenant’s claims Water rates refund
The tenant rented a detached minor dwelling that was very close to the main dwelling in which the landlord lived.
The tenant stated that there was only one water metre that covered both premises. The tenant stated that because it was not possible to determine exactly how much water they consumed and how much water the landlord consumed, they should be refunded the entirety of the water rates payments they have made.
The tenant’s position is correct in law: Section 39(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986 (the “RTA”) states that tenants are responsible for all outgoings that in respect of the premises are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises.
The courts have determined that rather than reimburse the full amount of the usage payments, the correct approach is to apply section 85 of the RTA which states that the Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case. See for example Parangi and Parangi v Zanetich [2021] NZTT 4287072.
The tenant produced a spreadsheet which shows a breakdown of water consumption, waste water consumption and fixed costs for water for the tenancy. They made the point that the waste-water charges appear to vary greatly and are not tied to their water consumption charges.
The landlord stated that although the two premises only have one water metre, there is a check-metre that measures only the tenant’s water consumption. The landlord produced photographs of the check-metre.
I am satisfied that even though the tenants did not know about the check-metre it does exist.
The landlord stated that their calculations for waste-water were based on the overall waste water charges for the two properties divided by the number of people in each premises. They conceded a better way would have been to multiply the water consumption charges by the Watercare estimation of water usage relative to waste-water usage, which is 78.5%.
The tenant’s spreadsheet shows the tenant was charged $402.76 for waste- water for the duration of the tenancy.
I have taken the total charges for water used as provided in the tenant’s spread sheet, $272.11 and divided that by the Watercare rate of $1.82 per kilo-litre to estimate that 149.51 kilo-litres of water were used in the course of this tenancy.
I have multiplied 149.51 by 78.5% to estimate that 117.36 kilo-litres of waste- water was consumed. I have then multiplied this by the waste-water charge of $3.174 per kilo-litre of waste-water, to get a more accurate estimate of waste- water charges which is $372.52. The difference between this and the amount charged is $30.24.
I therefore determine the tenants have been overcharged $30.24 for water and I order this be refunded.
Because the landlord does have a check-metre in place it is possible to accurately determine the usage of both water and waste-water. I consider this to be the most appropriate outcome of this dispute when applying section 85 of the RTA.
The amount ordered is proved. Unlawful entry s48 RTA
The tenant claims the landlord unlawfully entered their premises.
The tenants stated they went to Germany in 2023 and on the day they returned on 12 March 2023, they discovered the landlord’s representative in their courtyard painting the fence. There is no suggestion the landlord entered the tenant’s premises. The tenants are seeking exemplary damages for the landlord committing an unlawful act under section 48 of the RTA.
Exemplary damages can be awarded by the Tribunal to a landlord or a tenant as set out in section 109 of the RTA. This section limits the timeframe in which an application can be brought, to 12 months after the commission of the breach, see section 109(2)(b).
As the breach occurred on 12 March 2023 and the application for exemplary damages was first raised on 25 November 2024, (the date on which the tenant filed their application with Tenancy Services), the tenant is out of time in bringing this claim. This claim is dismissed. Failing to appoint an agent when out of the country s16A RTA
The tenant claims that when the landlord was out of the country for more than 21 days in 2024, they failed to appoint an agent as is required under section 16A of the RTA.
The landlord does not dispute they were out of the country for more than 21 days in 2024. However the landlord’s position is that the tenancy was almost exclusively managed by Stevan Milosavljevic who is the named landlord’s son, and he continued to manage the tenancy whilst his mother was overseas.
The tenant accepts this to be correct, but they say they should nonetheless been advised of the situation and provided with all of the information as required by, and as is set out in the RTA.
While Ms Milosavljevic was out of the country, there were no issues that arose that Stevan Milosavljevic was not able to attend to.
I accept the tenant’s submission that the landlord was in breach of a strict application of the RTA. However, because Stevan Milosavljevic was the person who was already acting as the agent for the landlord, and the tenants understood this, and there was no detriment to the tenants in anyway, I consider the breach to be on a technical level only.
Section 109(3) of the RTA provides the following: (3)If, on an application under subsection (1) (other than one referred to in subsection (3A)), the Tribunal is satisfied that the person against whom the order is sought committed the unlawful act intentionally, and that, having regard to— (a)the intent of that person in committing the unlawful act; and (b)the effect of the unlawful act; and (c)the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d)the public interest,— it would be just to require the person against whom the order is sought to pay a sum in the nature of exemplary damages, the Tribunal may make an order accordingly.
Having considered the above factors I consider it unnecessary to order the landlord to pay exemplary damages to the tenant, and I decline to do so. The landlord’s claims

How much is owed for outstanding water rates?

The landlord claims the tenant did not pay the last two water rates invoices totalling $108.14.
The tenant stated that they believe they paid the second to last invoice, but they were unable to find a record of the transaction, and so they chose to not dispute the invoice. The tenant accepted that they did not pay the last invoice.
The amounts are proved by consent. Damages
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.
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.
I must take into account 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, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord’s claims for damage are as follows: a. Damage to the carpet, b. Damage to the walls, c. Damage to a kitchen bench, d. Damage to a kitchen cupboard, e. Damage to exterior fibreboard baseboard, f. Damage to the laundry door-jamb, g. Garden shed needing to be disposed of.
The landlord stated that at the beginning of the tenancy the carpets were three and a half years old and were in mint condition. The tenancy lasted just over two years and one month. The landlord stated that at the end of the tenancy the carpets were horrible and needed replacing. The landlord stated there were burn marks in the carpet as well as stains. The landlord stated that the carpet smelled strongly of urine at the end of the tenancy, probably because the tenant’s 3-year old child had urinated throughout the house.
The landlord produced photographs in which I can see one small pink mark, two small grey marks and a dab-of-paint mark on the carpet. There may be one other very faint reddish mark. The photographs are clear and of good quality.
The tenant did not dispute the pink mark which they say is a tomato sauce stain. They stated that their child wore a nappy and did not urinate throughout the house. No mention of a smell of urine was raised during the tenancy or at the end of tenancy inspection. There are no urine stain marks apparent in any photographs. The tenant says this claim is not true.
I am not persuaded the carpet smelled of urine at the end of the tenancy. Nor am I persuaded by the landlord’s submission that the carpets only started smelling after they were cleaned. I note the tenant stated they had cleaned the carpets themselves prior to the end of the tenancy.
Nor am I persuaded that the marks on the carpet amount to anything more than fair wear and tear. The photographs provided show the carpet to be in better than very good condition for a two-year tenancy, or a five and a half year old carpet.
I am not persuaded the carpets were less than reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy, and I am certainly not persuaded they needed replacing. Neither the claim for carpet cleaning nor replacement are proved.
The damage to the walls raised by the landlord is for a piece of sticky tape left near the ceiling in the lounge, and two small areas of damage where the tenant removed a piece of tape from one wall in each of the two bedrooms. The landlord claims the tenant repainted the walls badly and the walls had to be repainted. A photograph of the piece of tape was produced and a photograph showing two small marks on one wall was produced.
I consider the amount of damage to the walls to be minimal, but I accept that given the nature of the damage, sticking tape to a painted wall, to be careless damage.
The landlord is seeking damage to a door-jamb in the laundry cupboard. The landlord produced a photographs which shows a small area where the jamb has been ripped or gouge through contact, and several other scratches.
The tenant was unaware of the damage, but did mention an issue with access to the cupboard and another with the washing machine moving around.
I consider the scratches to be fair wear and tear, but the rip or gouge to be careless damage.
The landlord produced an invoice $1,380.00 for several different repairs including the repairs to the walls. I do not consider it reasonable to make an award to repaint the whole wall given the size of the damage. I have made an award of $200.00 which covers the reasonable repairs to the door-jamb and the walls and takes into account wear and tear and betterment.
The landlord is claiming $71.99 (including GST) for damage to the kitchen bench. The tenant does not dispute this claim. It is proved by consent.
The landlord claims the tenant damaged the side of a kitchen cupboard. The landlord produced a photographs of a kitchen cupboard with a chip the size of a very small coin in the surface.
The tenant stated they were unaware of this mark.
After a two-year tenancy, I do not consider this chip or mark to be careless damage. There appears to be no other damage of any size or sort to the kitchen. I consider this to be fair wear and tear.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord is claiming $45.60+GST to repair a fibre-board baseboard around the side of the house. The landlord produced a photograph of the damage. It shows a small area of the baseboard to be cracked and stoved in.
The tenants say they were unaware of this damage and they did not cause it. There are no photographs from the start of the tenancy, and the damage was not raised in the end of tenancy inspection (the report of which has not been produced), or in the letter which followed.
The landlord has not proved that this damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord is claiming for the cost of disposing of the shed.
The landlord produced a photograph of the shed which is small and appears to be in very good condition.
The tenant states that at the end of the tenancy they dismantled another shed to take to the metal recyclers. Before they dismantled the second shed, the landlord stated that the second shed could be left.
The landlord denies this conversation occurred.
When I look at the condition of the shed, I consider that it is probably an asset to the property and I consider it likely that the conversation between the landlord and the tenant did occur, and that the landlord did offer to keep the shed. I also note that in the seven months since the application was made, the shed hasn’t yet been disposed of and there has been no cost to the landlord.
I do not find this claim proved.
The landlord is claiming $15,400.00 for loss of income. They say that because the premises were returned in such poor condition they have not been able to rent it out again for the past seven months. They are seeking compensation for rent for the past 28 weeks.
I do not agree with this perspective. When I look at the photographs and consider the information presented to me today, I consider the premises were returned in excellent condition. If the landlord wished to re-tenant the premises, I consider there was no impediment resulting from the tenant’s conduct stopping them.
The claim for loss of income is not proved.
Because both parties have been partially successful with their claims, I have made no order for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5091676 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 43 Taioma Crescent, Te Atatu Peninsula,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5091676 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1, 43 Taioma Crescent, Te Atatu Peninsula,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for outstanding water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for outstanding water rates?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions