What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5158052?

The tribunal order states: Mikayla Petta Tantirige and Supun Petta Tantirige must pay A1 Property

How much money was awarded in case 5158052?

Cleaning: $677.35 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $145.68 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Bench Top - Excess: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,823.75 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: bedroom carpet…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: living room car…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $41.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158052?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11886722-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5158052?

The tribunal order states: Mikayla Petta Tantirige and Supun Petta Tantirige must pay A1 Property

How much money was awarded in case 5158052?

Cleaning: $677.35 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $520.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $145.68 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Bench Top - Excess: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,823.75 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: bedroom carpet…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: living room car…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $41.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158052?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11886722-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

37 Tobollie Drive, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5158052 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158052 — net $5,522.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: by consent	$41.00	Water rates: by consent
Cleaning: by consent	$677.35	Cleaning: by consent
Cleaning: curtains - by consent	$520.00	Cleaning: curtains - by consent
Lawns and Garden work: by consent	$145.68	Lawns and Garden work: by consent
Replace furnishings: bedroom carpet - excess by consent	$500.00	Replace furnishings: bedroom carpet - excess by consent
Replace furnishings: living room carpet - excess by consent	$500.00	Replace furnishings: living room carpet - excess by consent
Cleaning: paint removal from garage and outdoor area	$149.50	Cleaning: paint removal from garage and outdoor area
Repairs: kitchen bench top - excess	$500.00	Repairs: kitchen bench top - excess
Repairs: breakfast bar panel replacement - excess	$500.00	Repairs: breakfast bar panel replacement - excess
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$138.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Repairs: painting and wall repairs (less depreciation	$3,823.75	Repairs: painting and wall repairs (less depreciation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,522.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,522.28

Order

Mikayla Petta Tantirige and Supun Petta Tantirige must pay A1 Property Managers Limited $5,522.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (6393781-001) to A1 Property Managers Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Edwards attended for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
During the hearing the tenant accepted a number of landlord claims as detailed in the table above.
These amounts are ordered by consent.

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. See section 40(1)(ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The tenant accepted responsibility for some cleaning costs following the end of the tenancy as stated above.
The tenant did not accept responsibility for the costs of water blasting paint from the floor of the garage and the concrete outdoor area, being $149.50.
The tenant acknowledged that the damage occurred during the tenancy but said that they should have been given the opportunity to complete the cleaning themselves.
The landlord provided an invoice and photographs to support its claim and I find that this cost is properly borne by the tenant as the property is not reasonably clean and tidy without the completion of this work.
The amount ordered 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.
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.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to three areas of the kitchen cabinetry (resulting in three separate insurance claims but each found to be under the excess amount to repair). b. Stains to ensuite vanity basin and drawer (resulting in a successful insurance claim). c. Damage to joinery on the underside of the breakfast bar (resulting in a successful insurance claim). d. Permanent stains to the Formica benchtop in the kitchen (resulting in a successful insurance claim). e. Electrical repairs to LED lights. f. Damage to a number of walls and other painted surfaces.
The landlord provided evidence to show that the property was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenants were the first occupants.
The landlord provided photographs, quotations and an approved insurance settlement form to support its claims for items a-d above.
The photographs relating to the three areas of damage to separate parts of the kitchen joinery (item a above) show what seems to be water, steam or heat damage to areas of joinery next to the dishwasher and oven. The damage seems to be due to expansion of the core material of the kitchen panels.
There does not seem to be a photograph of damage to the “door under sink” which is one of the three areas claimed for.
The tenant had no recollection of any particular incident which might have caused this damage and considered it fair wear and tear from normal use.
To my mind, this type of damage is most likely to be due to normal use and wear rather than from any careless action on the part of the tenants.
The three claims for “chipped” joinery are not proven and are dismissed.
The insurance excesses claimed for items b-d above were each for $650.00. This was the excess referred to in the insurer’s loss schedule for each claim.
The insurance excess figure stated in the tenancy agreement was $500.00. This is the amount the tenant has notice of (as required by the Act) and is the amount to be applied by the Tribunal where such claims are proven by the landlord.
The landlord claims for the insurance excess amount for damage to the ensuite vanity and basin and suggested that the damage was caused by hair dye.
The tenant had no recollection of the stains referred to and said they did not use hair dye.
The photographs provided to support this claim were taken by the insurance assessor when a new tenant was in residence at the property.
The photographs provided by the landlord to support the cleaning claim (which the tenant accepted above) also show this area and these photographs were taken immediately after the tenancy ended and prior to another tenant moving into the property.
The photographs to support the claim for the insurance excess for the new vanity show considerably more staining than the post tenancy photographs, and, in these circumstances, I do not find that the landlord has proven this claim to the required standard. I cannot be confident that this damage occurred during the tenancy.
The claim for the insurance excess for the vanity replacement is dismissed.
The landlord claims for damage to the panels under the breakfast bar area. The amount claimed is the insurance excess.
The landlord provided photographs to show that the laminate has been damaged in a number of places all along the panels in this area.
I consider this damage to be more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered, being the insurance excess amount noted in the tenancy agreement ($500.00), is proved.
The landlord claims the insurance excess for a replacement bench top due to damage to the surface of the Formica bench.
Photographs were provided to show multiple dark stains on the bench top. This damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered, being the insurance excess amount noted in the tenancy agreement ($500.00), is proved.
The landlord claims for electrical work to reconnect LED lights.
The tenant acknowledged that they had disconnected the lights at the beginning of the tenancy as they found them too bright. They had forgotten to reconnect them at the end and thought that the amount claimed was excessive given the work required weas a simple reattachment of the connection.
The invoice provided agrees with the tenants’ assessment of the work required but, nevertheless, the landlord was not aware of the problem nor how to fix it so an electrician call out was required.
The amount claimed ($138.00) is reasonable in the circumstances.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord claims $5,462.50 for repairing damage to walls and other painted surfaces throughout the premises.
The landlord provided an invoice and many photographs to support this claim.
The tenant acknowledged that there had been some damage to walls during the tenancy and they had made efforts to repair some of this damage.
The attempted repairs are visible in the photographs and clearly required further work to completely rectify the damage.
Other damage to painted surfaces is also visible in the photographs. This includes items that could be considered fair wear and tear but also includes gouges, holes, scratches, chips, and damage caused by the removal of brackets (such as for the television).
The landlord confirmed that the tenant was not being charged for repainting the entire premises. The areas painted were said to be in the kitchen, hallway, lounge, master bedroom, one other bedroom and the garage.
The landlord provided an additional invoice, paid by the owner, that included fair wear and tear touch-ups to other parts of the premises.
I consider that on the evidence provided, the damage to many walls and other painted surfaces was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage and the amount ordered is proved.
I have taken 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 note that the property was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenancy was about four years in duration and the tenants had two young children at the beginning of the tenancy (as noted on the tenancy agreement).
I consider that paintwork in such a property would likely need refreshing every 10-15 years and I have, therefore, discounted the claimed amount by 30% to allow for depreciation.
As A1 Property Managers Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5158052 — net $5,522.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: by consent	$41.00	Water rates: by consent
Cleaning: by consent	$677.35	Cleaning: by consent
Cleaning: curtains - by consent	$520.00	Cleaning: curtains - by consent
Lawns and Garden work: by consent	$145.68	Lawns and Garden work: by consent
Replace furnishings: bedroom carpet - excess by consent	$500.00	Replace furnishings: bedroom carpet - excess by consent
Replace furnishings: living room carpet - excess by consent	$500.00	Replace furnishings: living room carpet - excess by consent
Cleaning: paint removal from garage and outdoor area	$149.50	Cleaning: paint removal from garage and outdoor area
Repairs: kitchen bench top - excess	$500.00	Repairs: kitchen bench top - excess
Repairs: breakfast bar panel replacement - excess	$500.00	Repairs: breakfast bar panel replacement - excess
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$138.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Repairs: painting and wall repairs (less depreciation	$3,823.75	Repairs: painting and wall repairs (less depreciation
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,522.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,522.28

Order

Mikayla Petta Tantirige and Supun Petta Tantirige must pay A1 Property Managers Limited $5,522.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (6393781-001) to A1 Property Managers Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Ms Edwards attended for the landlord.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
During the hearing the tenant accepted a number of landlord claims as detailed in the table above.
These amounts are ordered by consent.

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. See section 40(1)(ca) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in all respects.
The tenant accepted responsibility for some cleaning costs following the end of the tenancy as stated above.
The tenant did not accept responsibility for the costs of water blasting paint from the floor of the garage and the concrete outdoor area, being $149.50.
The tenant acknowledged that the damage occurred during the tenancy but said that they should have been given the opportunity to complete the cleaning themselves.
The landlord provided an invoice and photographs to support its claim and I find that this cost is properly borne by the tenant as the property is not reasonably clean and tidy without the completion of this work.
The amount ordered 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.
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.
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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to three areas of the kitchen cabinetry (resulting in three separate insurance claims but each found to be under the excess amount to repair). b. Stains to ensuite vanity basin and drawer (resulting in a successful insurance claim). c. Damage to joinery on the underside of the breakfast bar (resulting in a successful insurance claim). d. Permanent stains to the Formica benchtop in the kitchen (resulting in a successful insurance claim). e. Electrical repairs to LED lights. f. Damage to a number of walls and other painted surfaces.
The landlord provided evidence to show that the property was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy and the tenants were the first occupants.
The landlord provided photographs, quotations and an approved insurance settlement form to support its claims for items a-d above.
The photographs relating to the three areas of damage to separate parts of the kitchen joinery (item a above) show what seems to be water, steam or heat damage to areas of joinery next to the dishwasher and oven. The damage seems to be due to expansion of the core material of the kitchen panels.
There does not seem to be a photograph of damage to the “door under sink” which is one of the three areas claimed for.
The tenant had no recollection of any particular incident which might have caused this damage and considered it fair wear and tear from normal use.
To my mind, this type of damage is most likely to be due to normal use and wear rather than from any careless action on the part of the tenants.
The three claims for “chipped” joinery are not proven and are dismissed.
The insurance excesses claimed for items b-d above were each for $650.00. This was the excess referred to in the insurer’s loss schedule for each claim.
The insurance excess figure stated in the tenancy agreement was $500.00. This is the amount the tenant has notice of (as required by the Act) and is the amount to be applied by the Tribunal where such claims are proven by the landlord.
The landlord claims for the insurance excess amount for damage to the ensuite vanity and basin and suggested that the damage was caused by hair dye.
The tenant had no recollection of the stains referred to and said they did not use hair dye.
The photographs provided to support this claim were taken by the insurance assessor when a new tenant was in residence at the property.
The photographs provided by the landlord to support the cleaning claim (which the tenant accepted above) also show this area and these photographs were taken immediately after the tenancy ended and prior to another tenant moving into the property.
The photographs to support the claim for the insurance excess for the new vanity show considerably more staining than the post tenancy photographs, and, in these circumstances, I do not find that the landlord has proven this claim to the required standard. I cannot be confident that this damage occurred during the tenancy.
The claim for the insurance excess for the vanity replacement is dismissed.
The landlord claims for damage to the panels under the breakfast bar area. The amount claimed is the insurance excess.
The landlord provided photographs to show that the laminate has been damaged in a number of places all along the panels in this area.
I consider this damage to be more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered, being the insurance excess amount noted in the tenancy agreement ($500.00), is proved.
The landlord claims the insurance excess for a replacement bench top due to damage to the surface of the Formica bench.
Photographs were provided to show multiple dark stains on the bench top. This damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered, being the insurance excess amount noted in the tenancy agreement ($500.00), is proved.
The landlord claims for electrical work to reconnect LED lights.
The tenant acknowledged that they had disconnected the lights at the beginning of the tenancy as they found them too bright. They had forgotten to reconnect them at the end and thought that the amount claimed was excessive given the work required weas a simple reattachment of the connection.
The invoice provided agrees with the tenants’ assessment of the work required but, nevertheless, the landlord was not aware of the problem nor how to fix it so an electrician call out was required.
The amount claimed ($138.00) is reasonable in the circumstances.
The amount ordered is proved.
The landlord claims $5,462.50 for repairing damage to walls and other painted surfaces throughout the premises.
The landlord provided an invoice and many photographs to support this claim.
The tenant acknowledged that there had been some damage to walls during the tenancy and they had made efforts to repair some of this damage.
The attempted repairs are visible in the photographs and clearly required further work to completely rectify the damage.
Other damage to painted surfaces is also visible in the photographs. This includes items that could be considered fair wear and tear but also includes gouges, holes, scratches, chips, and damage caused by the removal of brackets (such as for the television).
The landlord confirmed that the tenant was not being charged for repainting the entire premises. The areas painted were said to be in the kitchen, hallway, lounge, master bedroom, one other bedroom and the garage.
The landlord provided an additional invoice, paid by the owner, that included fair wear and tear touch-ups to other parts of the premises.
I consider that on the evidence provided, the damage to many walls and other painted surfaces was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage and the amount ordered is proved.
I have taken 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 note that the property was brand new at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenancy was about four years in duration and the tenants had two young children at the beginning of the tenancy (as noted on the tenancy agreement).
I consider that paintwork in such a property would likely need refreshing every 10-15 years and I have, therefore, discounted the claimed amount by 30% to allow for depreciation.
As A1 Property Managers Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158052 — Property damage at 37 Tobollie Drive, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158052 — Property damage at 37 Tobollie Drive, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

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