What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5154814?

The tribunal order states: Koral Whiley, Kevin Whiley and Miscene Ina Eldon Whiley to pay Kirkman

How much money was awarded in case 5154814?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge Ceiling: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154814?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154814?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11695728-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5154814?

The tribunal order states: Koral Whiley, Kevin Whiley and Miscene Ina Eldon Whiley to pay Kirkman

How much money was awarded in case 5154814?

Cleaning: $287.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Lounge Ceiling: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $207.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5154814?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5154814?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11695728-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Sequel Road, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5154814 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5154814 — net $1,704.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$287.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Garage Floor	$200.00	Cleaning: Garage Floor
Repairs: Benchtop - Insurance Excess	$550.00	Repairs: Benchtop - Insurance Excess
Repairs: Lounge Ceiling	$460.00	Repairs: Lounge Ceiling
Repairs: Tile Replacement	$207.00	Repairs: Tile Replacement
Net award	$1,704.50
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,704.50

Koral Whiley, Kevin Whiley and Miscene Ina Eldon Whiley to pay Kirkman Asset Management Limited $1,704.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 (6493286-023) immediately apportioned as follows: Kirkman Asset Management Limited: $1,704.50 Koral Whiley, Kevin Whiley and Miscene Ina Eldon Whiley: $1,695.50

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Yang attended for the landlord and Miscene Whiley for the tenants.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond, early release from a fixed term tenancy, compensation and exemplary damages for alleged breaches of quiet enjoyment.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background

The tenancy started in June 2023. It was renewed in 2024, for a further fixed term to 31 May 2025.

Orbit Property Management was the property manager and agent of the landlord throughout the tenancy, until 18 January 2025. Ms Yang, of Kirkman Asset Management Ltd became the landlord’s agent from 18 January 2025.

In late 2024, the tenants experienced some difficulties with the property owner (or her husband) visiting the premises. The tenant raised its concerns with the property manager and gave notice to end the tenancy.

The tenant’s position is that the property manager agreed to the early termination on behalf of the owner. Ms Yang disputes that and says that the owner never agreed to an early termination, only to an assignment of the tenancy provided that the tenant pay rent until a new tenancy started and a “break lease fee”. Ms Yang was not the owner’s agent during this period.

Ms Yang referred to communication between her and the owner recording the owner’s position. I did not hear from the owner or the previous property manager.

The tenant provided me with an email from the previous property manager with instructions for the end of the tenancy and confirming the final amount of rent payable “until your vacating day 17/2/25”.

I find that there was an agreement that the tenant could end the tenancy early, on 17 February 2025. 1

The tenant had paid rent to 17 January 2025, consistent with the email from the previous property manager. It follows that the landlord’s claim for rent to 31 1 Any disagreement between the owner and previous property manager regarding the instructions given or the property manager’s communication to the tenant, is not a matter for this Tribunal. As far as this tenant is concerned, the landlord (through its agent) had accepted that the tenancy would end on 17 January 2025. January 2025, is dismissed. As is the claim of $17.50 for time involved in seeking a new tenant. Quiet Enjoyment/Entry by the Landlord

The tenant gave notice to end the tenancy because of visits and alleged “snooping” by the owner (or her husband). The incidents took place on or about 6 November 2024, when a person visiting the property to carry out repairs is said to have gone throughout the house and into bedrooms.

A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Further, a landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.

Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.

I did not hear from any of the tenants who were home during the alleged “snooping” visit/s and did not hear from the owner or the person who visited the property.

The tenant has the onus of proving this aspect of its claim. The tenant has not established that it is more likely than not that the landlord improperly entered the premises and/or interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. This claim is dismissed. Early Termination of Fixed Term

The tenant had also applied for early termination of the fixed term tenancy.

The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In this case, the tenant sought to end the tenancy because of the landlord’s alleged conduct. Even if proved, that would not be grounds for early termination under s66(1) RTA.

However, I have found that the landlord (through its agent) agreed to the tenancy ending on 17 February 2025. Tenant Claim for Damage

The tenant also claimed $180 for reimbursement for a repair to the wall near the front door. The tenant provided a photograph after the alleged repair but did not provide any evidence of the damage. The claim is dismissed.

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.

The landlord claims that the carpet was not left reasonably clean. It was brand new at the start of the tenancy and stained at the end (even after commercial cleaning by the tenant). The landlord engaged an alternative cleaner, and the stains were removed. The landlord provided photographs and an invoice which establish its claims.

The landlord also claimed $575 for painting the garage floor because of oil staining. The landlord says that the staining cannot be cleaned but provided no evidence in support of that. The Tribunal regularly sees claims for removing oil from concrete. The tenant says that the floor was stained at the start of the tenancy. The ingoing inspection photographs do not support that submission.

I find that the oil staining occurred during the tenancy and the landlord is entitled to the cleaning cost; not painting the floor. I award $200 for cleaning.

The amounts ordered are 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.

The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: toilet seats came loose, paint damage to walls and lounge ceiling, bench top chipped and a tile was cracked. The landlord provided ingoing photographs, outgoing photographs and invoices or quotes to support its claims.

The tenant says that the damage claimed is consistent with the wear and tear that comes with living in a home. She said that the bench damage was there at the start of the tenancy, but the in-going photographs do not support that.

The damage to the bench occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord has made no attempt to recover the repair cost ($690) from its insurer. The tenancy renewal records that the landlord has a standard excess of $550, so I award that amount for the bench top damage.

The landlord has also established its claim for paint damage to the lounge ceiling and I award the amount claimed of $460. The other painting claims are not proved. The tenant had some paint damage repaired and provided an invoice for its painter who noted that the walls only had one coat of a matt paint (inconsistent with proper trade practice). The amounts claimed for each room are in the vicinity of $200, the amounts claimed and the photographs, confirm that this is consistent with wear and tear from normal use of the property. I also note that the painting has not been done and did not prevent the property from being re-tenanted within days of these tenants moving out. The other painting claims are dismissed.

The claim for the toilets seats is also dismissed, as being wear & tear or a maintenance issue for the landlord to address.

The landlord did establish its claim for replacing a cracked tile. The tenant suggested that the cracking was caused by movement during construction of neighbouring houses, but the damage is more consistent with impact damage (the clear circle or dent leading to cracking). I award $207.00 as claimed.

As each party was partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either filing fee and have not granted suppression of the parties’ names.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5154814 — net $1,704.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$287.50	Carpet Cleaning
Cleaning: Garage Floor	$200.00	Cleaning: Garage Floor
Repairs: Benchtop - Insurance Excess	$550.00	Repairs: Benchtop - Insurance Excess
Repairs: Lounge Ceiling	$460.00	Repairs: Lounge Ceiling
Repairs: Tile Replacement	$207.00	Repairs: Tile Replacement
Net award	$1,704.50
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,704.50