What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4377105 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4377105?

Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $20.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4377105?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4377105?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9390725-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4377105 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4377105?

Cleaning: $90.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Holes In Walls: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $20.54 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4377105?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4377105?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9390725-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

138 Whau Valley Road, Whau Valley, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4377105 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4377105 — net $965.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$20.54		Water rates
Cleaning	$90.00		the claim for $90 of cleaning is fair and reasonable.
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00		Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Holes in walls	$575.00		Repairs: Holes in walls
Carpet replacement	$600.00		Carpet replacement
Exemplary damages - non lodgment of bond		$300.00	Exemplary damages - non lodgment of bond
Refund of bond		$120.00	Refund of bond
Total award	$1,385.54	$420.00
Net award	$965.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$965.54

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: Rentals.co.nz Limited: $965.54 [The tenant/s]: $354.46

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 13 July 2022.
The landlord’s application seeks vacated cleaning, gardening, repairs, and compensation for replacement of carpets.
The tenant’s application seeks exemplary damages for non-lodgment of the bond.
Both parties attended the hearing in [Event location suppressed] on 8 September 2022. Ms Ashley Inglis and Ms Odette Inglis represented the landlord.
[The tenant/s] accepted the claim for water rates to the end of the final meter read. Cleaning and gardening
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] had the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy, but Ms Inglis was dissatisfied with the cleanliness of some parts of the property when she re-took possession. In particular, Ms Inglis felt that further cleaning was required in the laundry, a small porch at the back door, and some of the walls.
Ms Inglis’s photographs support the claim.
Some parts of the property were not at the reasonably clean and tidy standard at the end of the tenancy and the claim for $90 of cleaning is fair and reasonable.
The claim seeks $150 for garden tidy up. Ms Inglis submitted that the particular problem was a weedy vine grown on a rock wall. I understand that the wall extends across two properties. The claim seeks half of the cost of removing the vine from all of the wall. Ms Inglis provided two, fairly unsatisfactory, photographs of this area. The evidence is sufficient to show that some tidy up is required, but [The tenant/s]’s concern that the cost claimed is somewhat excessive is not adequately addressed by the limited evidence provided. I will award $100. Carpets, and wall repairs
Tenants are liable for damage, beyond fair wear and tear, that occurs during the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] acknowledged that there was damage to the walls in several areas during her tenancy.
[The tenant/s] arranged for basic patch repairs of the damaged areas, and the repair work is not terrible. However, it is reasonable for the landlord to require professional repair and painting of the damage. The amount claimed for repairs is proven.
The claim seeks the depreciated cost of carpet replacement on the grounds that it was badly stained in many areas during this tenancy. [The tenant/s] has young children and the stains are consistent with spilled drinks etc.
Ms Inglis’ photographs show multiple, highly visible stains in several areas.
The stains could not be removed by professional cleaning.
Ms Inglis provided a quote for $1907.85 to replace the carpet. Ms Inglis submitted that the landlord intends to replace the carpet, but the work has not happened yet due to the unavailability of tradespeople.
Ms Inglis submitted that the existing carpet was approximately 8-10 years old but that it was in very good condition at the beginning of this tenancy. [The tenant/s] agreed that it was in good condition.
The claim seeks $600.00, which represented approximately 30% of the new replacement cost.
I am satisfied that the extent of damage to the carpet during the tenancy necessitated replacement.
The amount of depreciation applied is reasonable and conservative.
The claim is proven. Tenant application – bond lodgment
[The tenant/s] paid a bond of $1320.00 at the beginning of the tenancy. That payment was lodged with the Bond Centre.
In December 2020 and February 2022, the landlord increased the weekly rent and requested a top up of the bond per section 18(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s] paid extra bond of $120.00 in December 2020 and $460.00 in February 2022.
At the end of the tenancy, [The tenant/s] discovered that these top up payments had not been lodged with the Bond Centre.
Ms Inglis submitted that was due to an administrative error. A contributing factor to that error was that the payments were not identified as bond payments when they came through to the landlord’s account. The $120.00 was applied to rent, and the $460.00 was held in the account and then paid out to [The tenant/s] (at her request) at the end of the tenancy.
Section 19(1) RTA states that if a landlord receives “any amount by way of bond (whether the amount is for the whole or the part of the bond)” then the landlord must lodge that payment with the Bond Centre within 23 working days.
Failure to do so is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $1500.00 can apply.
Section 109 RTA states that the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act has been committed intentionally. Section 109 states that in considering an appropriate award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act has been committed; and d. The public interest.
I accept that there was a genuine and understandable oversight in this instance. This is a relevant mitigating factor. However, I do not agree that it is entirely exculpatory. Landlords have a strong duty when it comes to bond payments. Rentals.co.nz specifically asked [The tenant/s] to pay additional bond of $120 and $460 – it should not have been confusing when those payments came in.
I will award exemplary damages of $150.00 for each incidence of failure to lodge the bond payments.
The $120.00 that was paid in February 2020 was bond. It should not have been applied to rent. [The tenant/s] is entitled to have that money applied to proven end of tenancy costs. Filing fee, bond, name suppression
Both parties have been successful in their applications. Each shall bear their own cost of the filing fee.
The held bond of $1,320.00 will be distributed per order 2 above.
Name suppression is granted to the tenant per section 95A(1) RTA. N Blake, 08 September 2022

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4377105 — net $965.54 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$20.54		Water rates
Cleaning	$90.00		the claim for $90 of cleaning is fair and reasonable.
Lawns and Garden work	$100.00		Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Holes in walls	$575.00		Repairs: Holes in walls
Carpet replacement	$600.00		Carpet replacement
Exemplary damages - non lodgment of bond		$300.00	Exemplary damages - non lodgment of bond
Refund of bond		$120.00	Refund of bond
Total award	$1,385.54	$420.00
Net award	$965.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$965.54

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details. 2.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of () immediately apportioned as follows: Rentals.co.nz Limited: $965.54 [The tenant/s]: $354.46

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 13 July 2022.
The landlord’s application seeks vacated cleaning, gardening, repairs, and compensation for replacement of carpets.
The tenant’s application seeks exemplary damages for non-lodgment of the bond.
Both parties attended the hearing in [Event location suppressed] on 8 September 2022. Ms Ashley Inglis and Ms Odette Inglis represented the landlord.
[The tenant/s] accepted the claim for water rates to the end of the final meter read. Cleaning and gardening
Tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] had the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy, but Ms Inglis was dissatisfied with the cleanliness of some parts of the property when she re-took possession. In particular, Ms Inglis felt that further cleaning was required in the laundry, a small porch at the back door, and some of the walls.
Ms Inglis’s photographs support the claim.
Some parts of the property were not at the reasonably clean and tidy standard at the end of the tenancy and the claim for $90 of cleaning is fair and reasonable.
The claim seeks $150 for garden tidy up. Ms Inglis submitted that the particular problem was a weedy vine grown on a rock wall. I understand that the wall extends across two properties. The claim seeks half of the cost of removing the vine from all of the wall. Ms Inglis provided two, fairly unsatisfactory, photographs of this area. The evidence is sufficient to show that some tidy up is required, but [The tenant/s]’s concern that the cost claimed is somewhat excessive is not adequately addressed by the limited evidence provided. I will award $100. Carpets, and wall repairs
Tenants are liable for damage, beyond fair wear and tear, that occurs during the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] acknowledged that there was damage to the walls in several areas during her tenancy.
[The tenant/s] arranged for basic patch repairs of the damaged areas, and the repair work is not terrible. However, it is reasonable for the landlord to require professional repair and painting of the damage. The amount claimed for repairs is proven.
The claim seeks the depreciated cost of carpet replacement on the grounds that it was badly stained in many areas during this tenancy. [The tenant/s] has young children and the stains are consistent with spilled drinks etc.
Ms Inglis’ photographs show multiple, highly visible stains in several areas.
The stains could not be removed by professional cleaning.
Ms Inglis provided a quote for $1907.85 to replace the carpet. Ms Inglis submitted that the landlord intends to replace the carpet, but the work has not happened yet due to the unavailability of tradespeople.
Ms Inglis submitted that the existing carpet was approximately 8-10 years old but that it was in very good condition at the beginning of this tenancy. [The tenant/s] agreed that it was in good condition.
The claim seeks $600.00, which represented approximately 30% of the new replacement cost.
I am satisfied that the extent of damage to the carpet during the tenancy necessitated replacement.
The amount of depreciation applied is reasonable and conservative.
The claim is proven. Tenant application – bond lodgment
[The tenant/s] paid a bond of $1320.00 at the beginning of the tenancy. That payment was lodged with the Bond Centre.
In December 2020 and February 2022, the landlord increased the weekly rent and requested a top up of the bond per section 18(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
[The tenant/s] paid extra bond of $120.00 in December 2020 and $460.00 in February 2022.
At the end of the tenancy, [The tenant/s] discovered that these top up payments had not been lodged with the Bond Centre.
Ms Inglis submitted that was due to an administrative error. A contributing factor to that error was that the payments were not identified as bond payments when they came through to the landlord’s account. The $120.00 was applied to rent, and the $460.00 was held in the account and then paid out to [The tenant/s] (at her request) at the end of the tenancy.
Section 19(1) RTA states that if a landlord receives “any amount by way of bond (whether the amount is for the whole or the part of the bond)” then the landlord must lodge that payment with the Bond Centre within 23 working days.
Failure to do so is an unlawful act, and exemplary damages of up to $1500.00 can apply.
Section 109 RTA states that the Tribunal may award exemplary damages if the Tribunal is satisfied that an unlawful act has been committed intentionally. Section 109 states that in considering an appropriate award of exemplary damages the Tribunal must have regard to: a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act has been committed; and d. The public interest.
I accept that there was a genuine and understandable oversight in this instance. This is a relevant mitigating factor. However, I do not agree that it is entirely exculpatory. Landlords have a strong duty when it comes to bond payments. Rentals.co.nz specifically asked [The tenant/s] to pay additional bond of $120 and $460 – it should not have been confusing when those payments came in.
I will award exemplary damages of $150.00 for each incidence of failure to lodge the bond payments.
The $120.00 that was paid in February 2020 was bond. It should not have been applied to rent. [The tenant/s] is entitled to have that money applied to proven end of tenancy costs. Filing fee, bond, name suppression
Both parties have been successful in their applications. Each shall bear their own cost of the filing fee.
The held bond of $1,320.00 will be distributed per order 2 above.
Name suppression is granted to the tenant per section 95A(1) RTA. N Blake, 08 September 2022

Tenancy Tribunal case 4377105 — Property damage at 138 Whau Valley Road, Whau Valley, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4377105 — Property damage at 138 Whau Valley Road, Whau Valley, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions