What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5097137?

The tribunal order states: Pallavi Mishra and Kushaal Chandra are to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 5097137?

Deck Sanding: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $95.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097137?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097137?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11770595-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5097137?

The tribunal order states: Pallavi Mishra and Kushaal Chandra are to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 5097137?

Deck Sanding: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $95.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $368.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097137?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097137?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11770595-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

115 First View Avenue, Beachlands, Auckland 2018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5097137 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5097137 — net $1,545.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$230.00	Rubbish removal
Remote replacement	$95.00	Remote replacement
Key replacement	$250.00	Key replacement
Deck repairs	$368.00	Deck repairs
Deck sanding	$575.00	Deck sanding
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,545.00
Bond	$3,980.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,545.00

Order

Pallavi Mishra and Kushaal Chandra are to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agents on behalf of Elliot & Emma Brinkley $1,545.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,980.00 (3059679-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agents on behalf of Elliot & Emma Brinkley: $1,545.00 Pallavi Mishra and Kushaal Chandra: $2,435.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Cheung.
This tenancy began on 30 June 2023 and ended on 7 October 2024. The rent is $995.00 per week and a bond of $3,980.00 was paid.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants 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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
In this case the evidence shows that the tenants did not remove all their belongings from the premises at the end of the tenancy, and items were left behind. This included a dog cage, gate railing and a large plastic sandpit. The tenants accept they left the gate behind by mistake. They state the plastic sandpit was not theirs, and they found it in the garage at the start of the tenancy. The ownership of the sandpit is unclear, since there are no photographs showing it being stored in the garage at the start of the tenancy.
In terms of the dog cage, the tenants state they had offered to leave it for the new tenants. They were happy to remove it, and were waiting for permission from the landlord to do so. They detailed their communication with the landlord and the lack of response.
While I understand the tenants had left the dog cage for the use of the next tenants, having not received any response from the landlord, it was their responsibility to ensure it was removed by the end of the tenancy. The lack of communication from the landlord does not absolve them. The landlord had to arrange for removal of these items and incurred the cost, which the tenants are to pay. The landlord’s evidence included photographs and an invoice.
Being satisfied that this claim has been established, the rubbish removal cost of $230.00 is awarded above.
The tenants accept the costs of replacing the remote ($95.00) and missing keys ($250.00), which are awarded above. The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage
The landlord claims the following: a. Deck repair arising from burns to the deck: $368.00 This is accepted by the tenants and is awarded above. b. Deck sanding due to damage from the tenants’ two dogs: $1,380.00. c. Front gate repairs due to damage from the tenants’ two dogs: $3,116.50 Legal principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the RTA.
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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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 age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered. Deck damage
The landlord has produced photographic evidence which shows that the damage to the deck occurred during this tenancy. There are scratch marks on the deck, most likely from the tenants’ two dogs. The landlord’s oral evidence is that this deck was freshly stained immediately prior to the start of the tenancy, although there is no supporting evidence of this. However, I accept that the deck was in a good condition prior to the tenants moving in, as shown in the entry photographs.
The landlord has provided a quotation, via email. Originally, in the application, the landlord claimed $575.00 for the deck sanding. This amount has since been revised to $1,380.00. The landlord has explained that the original quote was for one deck only, and the second is based on sanding of both decks. The landlord had also obtained a quotation for staining the deck, but no longer seeks this cost from the tenants and only claims the sanding cost.
Taking into account the evidence and submissions of both parties, noting the area of the deck that was damaged, the fact that this work has not been undertaken, applying the principle of betterment, and allowing for depreciation, I consider $575.00 to be reasonable compensation to the landlord for the deck damage. Gate damage
From the landlord’s photographic evidence, I am satisfied that the damage to the gate occurred during this tenancy. However, I am unable to accept that the landlord is now able to claim this cost, in view of the documentary evidence produced by the tenants showing that the parties already reached agreement on this cost, which was deducted from the tenant’s overpaid rent.
The emails show that the landlord claimed $100.00 plus GST for the gate damage, which the tenants accepted in their email dated 13 November 2024. The tenants also agreed that this amount could be deducted from the overpaid rent. The landlord’s email of 14 November 2024 acknowledges and confirms this. The tenants provided their authorisation on 18 November 2024 for deduction of the amounts noted in the landlord’s email, from the overpaid rent.
I would further note that the quotation provided by the landlord of $3,116.50 seems excessive in view of the damage shown in the photographs. There appears to be no functional damage to the gate, and it seems repairs were confined to addressing visible scratches on the gate. Furthermore, the landlord has not claimed through its insurer, stating that it was considered deliberate damage, and therefore excluded from the owner’s insurance policy. It is unclear whether this is the case, since there has been no evidence provided in support.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for compensation for the gate damage is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Because the landlord has been successful with most of its claims, the tenants are to pay the landlord’s filing fee.
Neither party seeks name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5097137 — net $1,545.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$230.00	Rubbish removal
Remote replacement	$95.00	Remote replacement
Key replacement	$250.00	Key replacement
Deck repairs	$368.00	Deck repairs
Deck sanding	$575.00	Deck sanding
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,545.00
Bond	$3,980.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,545.00

Order

Pallavi Mishra and Kushaal Chandra are to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agents on behalf of Elliot & Emma Brinkley $1,545.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,980.00 (3059679-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited as agents on behalf of Elliot & Emma Brinkley: $1,545.00 Pallavi Mishra and Kushaal Chandra: $2,435.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Mr Cheung.
This tenancy began on 30 June 2023 and ended on 7 October 2024. The rent is $995.00 per week and a bond of $3,980.00 was paid.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants 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) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
In this case the evidence shows that the tenants did not remove all their belongings from the premises at the end of the tenancy, and items were left behind. This included a dog cage, gate railing and a large plastic sandpit. The tenants accept they left the gate behind by mistake. They state the plastic sandpit was not theirs, and they found it in the garage at the start of the tenancy. The ownership of the sandpit is unclear, since there are no photographs showing it being stored in the garage at the start of the tenancy.
In terms of the dog cage, the tenants state they had offered to leave it for the new tenants. They were happy to remove it, and were waiting for permission from the landlord to do so. They detailed their communication with the landlord and the lack of response.
While I understand the tenants had left the dog cage for the use of the next tenants, having not received any response from the landlord, it was their responsibility to ensure it was removed by the end of the tenancy. The lack of communication from the landlord does not absolve them. The landlord had to arrange for removal of these items and incurred the cost, which the tenants are to pay. The landlord’s evidence included photographs and an invoice.
Being satisfied that this claim has been established, the rubbish removal cost of $230.00 is awarded above.
The tenants accept the costs of replacing the remote ($95.00) and missing keys ($250.00), which are awarded above. The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage
The landlord claims the following: a. Deck repair arising from burns to the deck: $368.00 This is accepted by the tenants and is awarded above. b. Deck sanding due to damage from the tenants’ two dogs: $1,380.00. c. Front gate repairs due to damage from the tenants’ two dogs: $3,116.50 Legal principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the RTA.
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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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 age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered. Deck damage
The landlord has produced photographic evidence which shows that the damage to the deck occurred during this tenancy. There are scratch marks on the deck, most likely from the tenants’ two dogs. The landlord’s oral evidence is that this deck was freshly stained immediately prior to the start of the tenancy, although there is no supporting evidence of this. However, I accept that the deck was in a good condition prior to the tenants moving in, as shown in the entry photographs.
The landlord has provided a quotation, via email. Originally, in the application, the landlord claimed $575.00 for the deck sanding. This amount has since been revised to $1,380.00. The landlord has explained that the original quote was for one deck only, and the second is based on sanding of both decks. The landlord had also obtained a quotation for staining the deck, but no longer seeks this cost from the tenants and only claims the sanding cost.
Taking into account the evidence and submissions of both parties, noting the area of the deck that was damaged, the fact that this work has not been undertaken, applying the principle of betterment, and allowing for depreciation, I consider $575.00 to be reasonable compensation to the landlord for the deck damage. Gate damage
From the landlord’s photographic evidence, I am satisfied that the damage to the gate occurred during this tenancy. However, I am unable to accept that the landlord is now able to claim this cost, in view of the documentary evidence produced by the tenants showing that the parties already reached agreement on this cost, which was deducted from the tenant’s overpaid rent.
The emails show that the landlord claimed $100.00 plus GST for the gate damage, which the tenants accepted in their email dated 13 November 2024. The tenants also agreed that this amount could be deducted from the overpaid rent. The landlord’s email of 14 November 2024 acknowledges and confirms this. The tenants provided their authorisation on 18 November 2024 for deduction of the amounts noted in the landlord’s email, from the overpaid rent.
I would further note that the quotation provided by the landlord of $3,116.50 seems excessive in view of the damage shown in the photographs. There appears to be no functional damage to the gate, and it seems repairs were confined to addressing visible scratches on the gate. Furthermore, the landlord has not claimed through its insurer, stating that it was considered deliberate damage, and therefore excluded from the owner’s insurance policy. It is unclear whether this is the case, since there has been no evidence provided in support.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for compensation for the gate damage is dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
Because the landlord has been successful with most of its claims, the tenants are to pay the landlord’s filing fee.
Neither party seeks name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097137 — Property damage at 115 First View Avenue, Beachlands, Auckland 2018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097137 — Property damage at 115 First View Avenue, Beachlands, Auckland 2018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions