What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5164051?

The tribunal order states: James Vermeeren must pay Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust $17,692.19

How much money was awarded in case 5164051?

Cleaning: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $634.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,449.00 awarded to landlord; Replace And Paint Wardrobe Doors In…: $851.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpets In Lounge And Bedroo…: $1,367.35 awarded to landlord; Replace French Doors: $5,119.64 awarded to landlord; Replace Front Door: $1,557.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Kitchen Benchtop: $1,897.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $505.10 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $4,464.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164051?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11900567-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5164051?

The tribunal order states: James Vermeeren must pay Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust $17,692.19

How much money was awarded in case 5164051?

Cleaning: $92.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $634.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,449.00 awarded to landlord; Replace And Paint Wardrobe Doors In…: $851.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Carpets In Lounge And Bedroo…: $1,367.35 awarded to landlord; Replace French Doors: $5,119.64 awarded to landlord; Replace Front Door: $1,557.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Kitchen Benchtop: $1,897.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $505.10 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $4,464.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5164051?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5164051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11900567-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Cuffs Road, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5164051 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164051 — net $17,692.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$505.10	Rubbish removal
Curtain cleaning	$92.00	Curtain cleaning
Window repairs	$634.25	Window repairs
Replace and paint wardrobe doors in small bedroom	$851.00	Replace and paint wardrobe doors in small bedroom
Repair skirtings, architraves	$1,449.00	Repair skirtings, architraves
Repair/replace walls, ceiling, windowsill, doors, shelving, smoke alarm, shower door. Remove sensor light and washing li	$4,464.35	Repair/replace walls, ceiling, windowsill, doors, shelving, smoke alarm, shower door. Remove sensor light and washing li
Replace carpets in lounge and bedroom	$1,367.35	Replace carpets in lounge and bedroom
Replace kitchen benchtop	$1,897.50	Replace kitchen benchtop
Replace French doors	$5,119.64	Replace French doors
Replace front door	$1,557.00	Replace front door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$17,692.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17,692.19

Order

James Vermeeren must pay Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust $17,692.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $272.00 (5885060-002) to Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust immediately.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Timpson represented the landlord. Mr Vermeeren was assisted by Ms Watson ad Ms Stewart from Housing First Christchurch.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Mr Vermeeren accepts the claim for removing rubbish and the claim for curtain cleaning.
The damage claims are as set out in the invoices provided by the landlord. Mr Vermeeren accepts all of these claims except: • Repairing holes in the kitchen and small bedroom • Removing second towel rail in the bathroom • Replacing shower door • Replacing curtain tracks in the lounge and bedroom • Replacing/repairing the garage door • Replacing the front door • Replacing the rear French doors
Mr Vermeeren also disputed the damage to the kitchen drawer and cupboard edges, but Ms Timpson withdrew these claims at the hearing. Wall damage in kitchen and small bedroom
To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Carelessness is not defined in the Act but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care required is similar to the standard of care required by the general law of tort in negligence cases. Thus, the question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, was exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances.
Mr Vermeeren does not dispute the damage claimed however he said that he plastered the holes in the kitchen and the small bedroom to an acceptable standard. He also said that he painted the areas repaired but he accepts that the painting was not of an acceptable standard (he claims this was because the paint supplied by the landlord was not of good quality). He said that one of the holes in the small bedroom had been repaired earlier in the tenancy by the landlord but was not repaired adequately and he was therefore able to put his hand through the repaired area.
On the evidence before me, including the photographs provided by the landlord, I am satisfied that Mr Vermeeren did not complete both the plastering and painting work to an adequate standard. I also find him liable for the hole he said occurred when he put his hand through repair work completed by the landlord. Even if the work was not completed to an adequate standard, it is likely to require some force to push his hand through the repair, and therefore his actions in doing so are below the standard expected of a reasonable prudent tenant.
The amount ordered has been established by the amounts recorded on an invoice dated 26 February 2025 from Kaiapoi Community Care & Employment Trust (the 26 February invoice). Removal of second towel rail and repair wall
I dismiss this claim.
I accept Mr Vermeeren’s evidence that the second towel rail was in the bathroom at the commencement of the tenancy. Mrs Timpson did not dispute his evidence and either did she provide any evidence, such as a pre tenancy inspection report or photographs of the bathroom taken at the start of the tenancy, to support the number of towel rails provided.
The cost to remove the towel rail and repair the wall after its removal is included in the 26 February invoice but has not been specifically itemised. Doing the best I can on the evidence provided I consider the sum of $150.00 reasonable to be deducted from the invoice total. Shower door
Ms Timpson said that the magnetic strip on the edge of the glass shower door was missing leaving a gap, and a replacement strip was not able to be obtained. The door was therefore replaced.
Mr Vermeeren accepts that the strip was missing but said this was because the door was hard to open. He said that there was handle on the door and he had to pull it hard from the top to open it.
I find Mr Vermeeren liable for the missing strip. I consider that it is more likely than not that the strip came off due to careless or rough use of the door by Mr Vermeeren or others at the premises with his permission.
The amount ordered has been established in the 26 February invoice. Curtain tracks
I find Mr Vermeeren liable to replace the curtain tracks in the lounge and bedroom. Ms Timpson said that both of these tracks were bent in the middle and could not be repaired.
I am not persuaded by Mr Vermeeren’s evidence that the damage to the tracks (which he said was them “falling to bits” or falling to the ground) was caused by there being insufficient brackets holding them up. I find that it is more likely than not that the tracks were bent by careless or rough use by Mr Vermeeren or others at the premises with his permission.
The amount ordered is recorded on the 26 February invoice. The Garage door
This claim is dismissed.
I accept Mr Vermeeren’s evidence (which was not disputed by Ms Timpson) that the damage claimed to the garage door was caused by Mr Vermeeren’s neighbour who Mr Vermeeren believes was attempting to steal a lawnmower from the garage. The neighbour was not at the premises with Mr Vermeeren’s permission. Mr Vermeeren said that he was at home when the incident occurred. As mentioned above, a tenant is only liable for damage caused by him or by someone at the premises with his permission.
The 26 February invoice records the cost of $707.25 (including GST) to repair the doorframe and replace the door. However, it also includes work that Mr Vermeeren accepts (removing shelving and a sensor light and making good). Again, doing the best I can on the evidence I have I considered a deduction from the amount claimed of $600.00 (inclusive of GST) to account for the door repair work. Carpets and bench top
Mr Vermeeren accepts the claim for damage to the lounge and bedroom carpets and to the kitchen benchtop. The amount claimed to replace the carpets is $2,357.50 and the amount claimed to replace the bench top is $2,833.60.
However, I have reduced the amount claimed for both to account for betterment and depreciation. A 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 have taken into account the age of the items and their likely useful lifespan.
The carpets and the bench top were new when the tenancy started in December 2019. Thus, both were just over five years old at the end of the tenancy. Carpets are expected to last approximately 12 years before requiring replacement and laminate benchtops are expected to last approximately 15 years. I have therefore reduced the amount claimed to replace the carpets by 42%, and the amount claimed for the benchtop by 33%. The front door and the rear French doors
Mr Vermeeren said that the French doors were damaged in the middle of the doors by a lock being installed too close to the edge which caused the wood to crack. He said the crack extended over time with use of the doors. He said that the bottom of the door was damaged because he had to kick or push the door with his foot to open it. He said that the wood would expand in winter causing the door to stick.
Section 40(1)(d) of the Act is relevant here. That section requires a tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage or of the need for repairs. Mr Vermeeren accepts that he did not tell the landlord about the door sticking until the damage had started to occur, although Ms Timpson denies being told at all about the problem with the door sticking.
I find Mr Vermeeren liable for the damage to the door. I consider that the damage was caused carelessly by him, or others at the premises with his permission, by continuing to use force to open the door knowing that it was causing damage to it. I consider that a reasonable prudent tenant would ensure that the landlord remedied the problem with the door before continuing to use it.
I also find Mr Vermeeren liable for the need to replace the front door. It was not disputed that at least one of the five glass panels in the door were broken during the tenancy (Mr Vermeeren claims it was only one, Ms Timpson said it was four of the five).
The glass in the panel(s) were replaced during the tenancy but because they were required to be replaced by safety glass, which is thicker than the existing glass, the existing beadings would not fit. Replacement beadings of the required size could not be found, and Ms Timpson said that the door had to be replaced. Ms Timpson also said that the lock was damaged (Mr Vermeeren accepts that the lock and handle required replacement but denied the door was kicked in as claimed by Ms Timpson).
The amounts ordered to replace both doors has been established by the production of invoices.
The landlord has been mostly successful in its claims ad I consider this an appropriate case to award it payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5164051 — net $17,692.19 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$505.10	Rubbish removal
Curtain cleaning	$92.00	Curtain cleaning
Window repairs	$634.25	Window repairs
Replace and paint wardrobe doors in small bedroom	$851.00	Replace and paint wardrobe doors in small bedroom
Repair skirtings, architraves	$1,449.00	Repair skirtings, architraves
Repair/replace walls, ceiling, windowsill, doors, shelving, smoke alarm, shower door. Remove sensor light and washing li	$4,464.35	Repair/replace walls, ceiling, windowsill, doors, shelving, smoke alarm, shower door. Remove sensor light and washing li
Replace carpets in lounge and bedroom	$1,367.35	Replace carpets in lounge and bedroom
Replace kitchen benchtop	$1,897.50	Replace kitchen benchtop
Replace French doors	$5,119.64	Replace French doors
Replace front door	$1,557.00	Replace front door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$17,692.19
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17,692.19

Order

James Vermeeren must pay Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust $17,692.19 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $272.00 (5885060-002) to Emerge Aotearoa Housing Trust immediately.
The landlord’s other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Timpson represented the landlord. Mr Vermeeren was assisted by Ms Watson ad Ms Stewart from Housing First Christchurch.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Mr Vermeeren accepts the claim for removing rubbish and the claim for curtain cleaning.
The damage claims are as set out in the invoices provided by the landlord. Mr Vermeeren accepts all of these claims except: • Repairing holes in the kitchen and small bedroom • Removing second towel rail in the bathroom • Replacing shower door • Replacing curtain tracks in the lounge and bedroom • Replacing/repairing the garage door • Replacing the front door • Replacing the rear French doors
Mr Vermeeren also disputed the damage to the kitchen drawer and cupboard edges, but Ms Timpson withdrew these claims at the hearing. Wall damage in kitchen and small bedroom
To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Carelessness is not defined in the Act but it has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought. The standard of care required is similar to the standard of care required by the general law of tort in negligence cases. Thus, the question can be expressed as whether the tenant, or some other person at the premises with the tenant’s permission, was exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances.
Mr Vermeeren does not dispute the damage claimed however he said that he plastered the holes in the kitchen and the small bedroom to an acceptable standard. He also said that he painted the areas repaired but he accepts that the painting was not of an acceptable standard (he claims this was because the paint supplied by the landlord was not of good quality). He said that one of the holes in the small bedroom had been repaired earlier in the tenancy by the landlord but was not repaired adequately and he was therefore able to put his hand through the repaired area.
On the evidence before me, including the photographs provided by the landlord, I am satisfied that Mr Vermeeren did not complete both the plastering and painting work to an adequate standard. I also find him liable for the hole he said occurred when he put his hand through repair work completed by the landlord. Even if the work was not completed to an adequate standard, it is likely to require some force to push his hand through the repair, and therefore his actions in doing so are below the standard expected of a reasonable prudent tenant.
The amount ordered has been established by the amounts recorded on an invoice dated 26 February 2025 from Kaiapoi Community Care & Employment Trust (the 26 February invoice). Removal of second towel rail and repair wall
I dismiss this claim.
I accept Mr Vermeeren’s evidence that the second towel rail was in the bathroom at the commencement of the tenancy. Mrs Timpson did not dispute his evidence and either did she provide any evidence, such as a pre tenancy inspection report or photographs of the bathroom taken at the start of the tenancy, to support the number of towel rails provided.
The cost to remove the towel rail and repair the wall after its removal is included in the 26 February invoice but has not been specifically itemised. Doing the best I can on the evidence provided I consider the sum of $150.00 reasonable to be deducted from the invoice total. Shower door
Ms Timpson said that the magnetic strip on the edge of the glass shower door was missing leaving a gap, and a replacement strip was not able to be obtained. The door was therefore replaced.
Mr Vermeeren accepts that the strip was missing but said this was because the door was hard to open. He said that there was handle on the door and he had to pull it hard from the top to open it.
I find Mr Vermeeren liable for the missing strip. I consider that it is more likely than not that the strip came off due to careless or rough use of the door by Mr Vermeeren or others at the premises with his permission.
The amount ordered has been established in the 26 February invoice. Curtain tracks
I find Mr Vermeeren liable to replace the curtain tracks in the lounge and bedroom. Ms Timpson said that both of these tracks were bent in the middle and could not be repaired.
I am not persuaded by Mr Vermeeren’s evidence that the damage to the tracks (which he said was them “falling to bits” or falling to the ground) was caused by there being insufficient brackets holding them up. I find that it is more likely than not that the tracks were bent by careless or rough use by Mr Vermeeren or others at the premises with his permission.
The amount ordered is recorded on the 26 February invoice. The Garage door
This claim is dismissed.
I accept Mr Vermeeren’s evidence (which was not disputed by Ms Timpson) that the damage claimed to the garage door was caused by Mr Vermeeren’s neighbour who Mr Vermeeren believes was attempting to steal a lawnmower from the garage. The neighbour was not at the premises with Mr Vermeeren’s permission. Mr Vermeeren said that he was at home when the incident occurred. As mentioned above, a tenant is only liable for damage caused by him or by someone at the premises with his permission.
The 26 February invoice records the cost of $707.25 (including GST) to repair the doorframe and replace the door. However, it also includes work that Mr Vermeeren accepts (removing shelving and a sensor light and making good). Again, doing the best I can on the evidence I have I considered a deduction from the amount claimed of $600.00 (inclusive of GST) to account for the door repair work. Carpets and bench top
Mr Vermeeren accepts the claim for damage to the lounge and bedroom carpets and to the kitchen benchtop. The amount claimed to replace the carpets is $2,357.50 and the amount claimed to replace the bench top is $2,833.60.
However, I have reduced the amount claimed for both to account for betterment and depreciation. A 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 have taken into account the age of the items and their likely useful lifespan.
The carpets and the bench top were new when the tenancy started in December 2019. Thus, both were just over five years old at the end of the tenancy. Carpets are expected to last approximately 12 years before requiring replacement and laminate benchtops are expected to last approximately 15 years. I have therefore reduced the amount claimed to replace the carpets by 42%, and the amount claimed for the benchtop by 33%. The front door and the rear French doors
Mr Vermeeren said that the French doors were damaged in the middle of the doors by a lock being installed too close to the edge which caused the wood to crack. He said the crack extended over time with use of the doors. He said that the bottom of the door was damaged because he had to kick or push the door with his foot to open it. He said that the wood would expand in winter causing the door to stick.
Section 40(1)(d) of the Act is relevant here. That section requires a tenant to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage or of the need for repairs. Mr Vermeeren accepts that he did not tell the landlord about the door sticking until the damage had started to occur, although Ms Timpson denies being told at all about the problem with the door sticking.
I find Mr Vermeeren liable for the damage to the door. I consider that the damage was caused carelessly by him, or others at the premises with his permission, by continuing to use force to open the door knowing that it was causing damage to it. I consider that a reasonable prudent tenant would ensure that the landlord remedied the problem with the door before continuing to use it.
I also find Mr Vermeeren liable for the need to replace the front door. It was not disputed that at least one of the five glass panels in the door were broken during the tenancy (Mr Vermeeren claims it was only one, Ms Timpson said it was four of the five).
The glass in the panel(s) were replaced during the tenancy but because they were required to be replaced by safety glass, which is thicker than the existing glass, the existing beadings would not fit. Replacement beadings of the required size could not be found, and Ms Timpson said that the door had to be replaced. Ms Timpson also said that the lock was damaged (Mr Vermeeren accepts that the lock and handle required replacement but denied the door was kicked in as claimed by Ms Timpson).
The amounts ordered to replace both doors has been established by the production of invoices.
The landlord has been mostly successful in its claims ad I consider this an appropriate case to award it payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164051 — Smoke alarms at 13 Cuffs Road, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5164051 — Smoke alarms at 13 Cuffs Road, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions