What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5176635?

The tribunal order states: Shontelle Watson and Mark Buchanan to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 5176635?

Cleaning: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Flea Treatment: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe Door Latch: $62.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $85.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176635?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176635?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12005486-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5176635?

The tribunal order states: Shontelle Watson and Mark Buchanan to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as

How much money was awarded in case 5176635?

Cleaning: $74.75 awarded to landlord; Flea Treatment: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $276.00 awarded to landlord; Wardrobe Door Latch: $62.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $85.10 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176635?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176635?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12005486-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

63 Beachlands Road, Beachlands, Auckland 2018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5176635 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5176635 — net $647.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Toilet	$74.75	Cleaning: Toilet
Window repairs: Thumb knob replacement	$85.10	Window repairs: Thumb knob replacement
Repairs: Wardrobe door latch	$62.10	Repairs: Wardrobe door latch
Flea treatment	$150.00	Flea treatment
Carpet and underlay replacement	$276.00	Carpet and underlay replacement
Net award	$647.95
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$647.95

Order

Shontelle Watson and Mark Buchanan to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Sarah Pottinger & Mike Tusevljak & Thompson $647.95 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (3589044-010) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Sarah Pottinger & Mike Tusevljak & Thompson: $647.95 Shontelle Watson and Mark Buchanan: $2,552.05

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a claim and counter claim.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claim is largely refuting the landlord claims and seek compensation for leaking windows, garage flooding and loss of items, refund of the bond and filing fee. Civil burden of proof for Tenancy Tribunal:
The Tenancy Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.”
That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case.
If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants left the premises generally in an excellent condition. However, the landlord seeks to claim the cost of $74.75 for the cleaning of the toilet and $150 for flea treatment, $480.00 for garden maintenance, and $201.25 for carpet cleaning.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a few photos and invoices for the cost of the remedial work required. Toilet:
The tenants said that the toilet had mineral deposits in the lower basin due to water from the storage tank. However, the tenants were not opposed to paying the cost of the cleaning. The photos show that there were marks in the bottom basin which is consistent with mineral deposits and not a lack of cleaning. The standard of cleanliness in the home was high. Flea treatment:
The tenants had cats in the property. Despite the tenants saying that their cats were given regular flea treatment, and they were unaware of the problem, I consider it is more likely than not that the fleas came from the tenants’ cats.
I find that the landlord has proven their claims for the flea treatment and the toilet cleaning. Garden maintenance/drain clearing/ carpet cleaning:
The landlord claims the cost of $480.00 for garden maintenance and drainage clearing and $201.25 for carpet cleaning.
The landlord has not provided the Tribunal with an exit inspection report and photos. The landlord has provided a few photos of specific areas that they wish to highlight.
Regarding the garden maintenance, the landlord provided a few close-up photos, but not photos that give me an overview of the whole area. The landlord says that at the commencement of the tenancy the gardens and drainage were well maintained. They say at the end of the tenancy the gardens were overgrown with weeds and garden waste, clogging the drainage system.
There were a few areas in photos provided that show gardening waste such as palm tree branches, leaves, overhanging vines all of which are from the neighbouring property. There were grass clippings in one small area that the landlord said was from the tenants.
The tenants point out the vines, palms and leaves are all from the neighbour’s property coming and falling into their garden. The grass clippings are not theirs as they have always used the gardening bins that they pay for each month.
The landlord says that all this garden waste has clogged up the drainage underneath the waste. The tenants said they have had to clear the drainage system and dig a deeper grove in the drainage to accommodate the rain.
Generally, a tenant under a tenancy agreement would be expected to weed and mow lawns. It is generally the responsibility of the landlord to carry out bigger maintenance such as pruning over hanging vines and palm branches, shrubs and trees.
The landlord said that they had a verbal agreement at the start of the tenancy that the tenants would take care of the gardens and drainage system. However, this agreement was not put in writing. The issue I have is what were the specific terms and conditions of this additional contract? Neither party has told me what was agreed in terms of the pruning and maintenance. Therefore, I must adopt the standard used in the Tribunal and that is standard of fair and reasonable.
I find the tenants left the gardens and drainage system in a fair and reasonable condition. The landlord has not proven their claim for the garden maintenance and drainage system. Carpets:
The landlord provided two invoices for the carpets. One invoice was for $201.25 for cleaning of stains in the carpet. The other was $276.00 for the replacement carpet and underlay as a result of cat urine soiling.
After the end of the tenancy the landlord said there were two marks on the carpet in the lounge and urine stains were seen when the carpet was lifted up.
There were photos of these two marks. Again, the photos were close-up and not an overview of the carpets. The marks were small, and the tenants were unaware of them. I consider this is normal wear and tear. The landlord has not proven their claim for the carpet cleaning.
The tenants had two cats in the property. Weeks after the tenancy ended the landlord smelt urine on the carpet. Eventually the carpets were lifted to reveal stains of what appear to be cat urine.
While the tenants dispute that their cats did urinate in the house, I find that it is more likely than not that the cats have soiled the carpet.
The landlord has proven their claim for the cost of the replacement carpet and underlay.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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) 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) 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 landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Wardrobe door latch. -Thumb knob for window. -Scratch on lounge wall. Knob and latch:
The tenants accept that the thumb knob was missing at the end of the tenancy and that their 12-year son broken the door latch opening it. They are not opposed to paying to repair the wardrobe door latch and the thumb knob for the window. The tenants are to repay the landlord for these items. Scratch on the lounge wall:
The landlord has provided a photo of a small scratch on the wall in the lounge near a doorway. The tenants have put a small bit of plaster over the scratch and over two screw marks popping out of the wall. The landlord has also provided an invoice for $575.00 for the cost of plastering and repainting the wall.
The landlord said the whole wall had to be repainted and could not be patched. This is a home of a high standard; the tenants kept it in immaculate condition during the tenancy. The tenants said that a day or so before the end of their tenancy they scratched the wall when their vacuum cleaner fell on it.
I consider this normal wear and tear. This is a single minor scratch, not multiple, resulting from normal household usage. In making this assessment I must consider the size and severity of the damage, was it intentional or carelessness or done while living normally in the house.
I do not find that the landlord has proven their claim relating to the scratch on the lounge wall. The tenants claim:
The tenants have filed an application claiming that they suffered loss because of a flood in their garage and that the windows leaked constantly throughout the tenancy.
At the hearing despite wanting to raise these issues the tenants did not want compensation for these issues.
There was a flood in the garage during the Auckland floods in 2023. The landlord was advised, and they took immediate and appropriate steps to assist the tenants and remedy areas that would assist to ensure this never occurred again.
Unfortunately, the tenant’s precious family mementos were damaged irreparably in the flood. The tenants say they are not seeking compensation for the lost items as they were of sentimental value and irreplaceable.
The windows were constantly leaking during the tenancy. Again, the landlord was advised, and I find they were pro active and diligent is finding a solution to the problem. Regardless the tenants do not seek any compensation for the issue.
I find the tenants were excellent and treated the property well and the landlord was reasonable and diligent when there were concerns or maintenance needed. The home is of a high standard and as a result I believe that the landlord had high expectation of tenants in the property.
As both parties have been successful, I am not reimbursing either their filing fee.
Neither party sought suppression.
The bond is to be split between the parties as set out at the start of the Order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5176635 — net $647.95 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: Toilet	$74.75	Cleaning: Toilet
Window repairs: Thumb knob replacement	$85.10	Window repairs: Thumb knob replacement
Repairs: Wardrobe door latch	$62.10	Repairs: Wardrobe door latch
Flea treatment	$150.00	Flea treatment
Carpet and underlay replacement	$276.00	Carpet and underlay replacement
Net award	$647.95
Bond	$3,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$647.95

Order

Shontelle Watson and Mark Buchanan to pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Sarah Pottinger & Mike Tusevljak & Thompson $647.95 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 (3589044-010) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited as Agent for Sarah Pottinger & Mike Tusevljak & Thompson: $647.95 Shontelle Watson and Mark Buchanan: $2,552.05

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This is a claim and counter claim.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s claim is largely refuting the landlord claims and seek compensation for leaking windows, garage flooding and loss of items, refund of the bond and filing fee. Civil burden of proof for Tenancy Tribunal:
The Tenancy Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.”
That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case.
If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1) (ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants left the premises generally in an excellent condition. However, the landlord seeks to claim the cost of $74.75 for the cleaning of the toilet and $150 for flea treatment, $480.00 for garden maintenance, and $201.25 for carpet cleaning.
The landlord has provided the Tribunal with a few photos and invoices for the cost of the remedial work required. Toilet:
The tenants said that the toilet had mineral deposits in the lower basin due to water from the storage tank. However, the tenants were not opposed to paying the cost of the cleaning. The photos show that there were marks in the bottom basin which is consistent with mineral deposits and not a lack of cleaning. The standard of cleanliness in the home was high. Flea treatment:
The tenants had cats in the property. Despite the tenants saying that their cats were given regular flea treatment, and they were unaware of the problem, I consider it is more likely than not that the fleas came from the tenants’ cats.
I find that the landlord has proven their claims for the flea treatment and the toilet cleaning. Garden maintenance/drain clearing/ carpet cleaning:
The landlord claims the cost of $480.00 for garden maintenance and drainage clearing and $201.25 for carpet cleaning.
The landlord has not provided the Tribunal with an exit inspection report and photos. The landlord has provided a few photos of specific areas that they wish to highlight.
Regarding the garden maintenance, the landlord provided a few close-up photos, but not photos that give me an overview of the whole area. The landlord says that at the commencement of the tenancy the gardens and drainage were well maintained. They say at the end of the tenancy the gardens were overgrown with weeds and garden waste, clogging the drainage system.
There were a few areas in photos provided that show gardening waste such as palm tree branches, leaves, overhanging vines all of which are from the neighbouring property. There were grass clippings in one small area that the landlord said was from the tenants.
The tenants point out the vines, palms and leaves are all from the neighbour’s property coming and falling into their garden. The grass clippings are not theirs as they have always used the gardening bins that they pay for each month.
The landlord says that all this garden waste has clogged up the drainage underneath the waste. The tenants said they have had to clear the drainage system and dig a deeper grove in the drainage to accommodate the rain.
Generally, a tenant under a tenancy agreement would be expected to weed and mow lawns. It is generally the responsibility of the landlord to carry out bigger maintenance such as pruning over hanging vines and palm branches, shrubs and trees.
The landlord said that they had a verbal agreement at the start of the tenancy that the tenants would take care of the gardens and drainage system. However, this agreement was not put in writing. The issue I have is what were the specific terms and conditions of this additional contract? Neither party has told me what was agreed in terms of the pruning and maintenance. Therefore, I must adopt the standard used in the Tribunal and that is standard of fair and reasonable.
I find the tenants left the gardens and drainage system in a fair and reasonable condition. The landlord has not proven their claim for the garden maintenance and drainage system. Carpets:
The landlord provided two invoices for the carpets. One invoice was for $201.25 for cleaning of stains in the carpet. The other was $276.00 for the replacement carpet and underlay as a result of cat urine soiling.
After the end of the tenancy the landlord said there were two marks on the carpet in the lounge and urine stains were seen when the carpet was lifted up.
There were photos of these two marks. Again, the photos were close-up and not an overview of the carpets. The marks were small, and the tenants were unaware of them. I consider this is normal wear and tear. The landlord has not proven their claim for the carpet cleaning.
The tenants had two cats in the property. Weeks after the tenancy ended the landlord smelt urine on the carpet. Eventually the carpets were lifted to reveal stains of what appear to be cat urine.
While the tenants dispute that their cats did urinate in the house, I find that it is more likely than not that the cats have soiled the carpet.
The landlord has proven their claim for the cost of the replacement carpet and underlay.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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) 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) 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 landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Wardrobe door latch. -Thumb knob for window. -Scratch on lounge wall. Knob and latch:
The tenants accept that the thumb knob was missing at the end of the tenancy and that their 12-year son broken the door latch opening it. They are not opposed to paying to repair the wardrobe door latch and the thumb knob for the window. The tenants are to repay the landlord for these items. Scratch on the lounge wall:
The landlord has provided a photo of a small scratch on the wall in the lounge near a doorway. The tenants have put a small bit of plaster over the scratch and over two screw marks popping out of the wall. The landlord has also provided an invoice for $575.00 for the cost of plastering and repainting the wall.
The landlord said the whole wall had to be repainted and could not be patched. This is a home of a high standard; the tenants kept it in immaculate condition during the tenancy. The tenants said that a day or so before the end of their tenancy they scratched the wall when their vacuum cleaner fell on it.
I consider this normal wear and tear. This is a single minor scratch, not multiple, resulting from normal household usage. In making this assessment I must consider the size and severity of the damage, was it intentional or carelessness or done while living normally in the house.
I do not find that the landlord has proven their claim relating to the scratch on the lounge wall. The tenants claim:
The tenants have filed an application claiming that they suffered loss because of a flood in their garage and that the windows leaked constantly throughout the tenancy.
At the hearing despite wanting to raise these issues the tenants did not want compensation for these issues.
There was a flood in the garage during the Auckland floods in 2023. The landlord was advised, and they took immediate and appropriate steps to assist the tenants and remedy areas that would assist to ensure this never occurred again.
Unfortunately, the tenant’s precious family mementos were damaged irreparably in the flood. The tenants say they are not seeking compensation for the lost items as they were of sentimental value and irreplaceable.
The windows were constantly leaking during the tenancy. Again, the landlord was advised, and I find they were pro active and diligent is finding a solution to the problem. Regardless the tenants do not seek any compensation for the issue.
I find the tenants were excellent and treated the property well and the landlord was reasonable and diligent when there were concerns or maintenance needed. The home is of a high standard and as a result I believe that the landlord had high expectation of tenants in the property.
As both parties have been successful, I am not reimbursing either their filing fee.
Neither party sought suppression.
The bond is to be split between the parties as set out at the start of the Order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176635 — Property damage at 63 Beachlands Road, Beachlands, Auckland 2018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176635 — Property damage at 63 Beachlands Road, Beachlands, Auckland 2018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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