What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4491640 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4491640?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4491640?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4491640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9383903-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4491640 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4491640?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4491640?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4491640?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9383903-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

76 Willerton Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4491640 — Cleanliness

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The tenants’ claim for return of their bond is allowed.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [the tenants] immediately.
PR Property Management Limited acting as agent for Dr Kranthi Kumar Pandadu Swarnapuri must immediately pay the tenants $20.44 for their filing fee.

Reasons

One of the tenants attended the hearing. 1 She represented her partner. Her partner had a traumatic accident recently and the couple have three children under the age of five, so it was not practicable for both of the tenants to attend.
Ram Narayanraja attended for the landlord’s agent.
The tenants apply for return of the bond.
The landlord seeks an order that $600.00 be paid from the bond to pay for the cost of paint repairs made after the tenancy ended.
The tenancy began on 31 October 2020 and ended on 23 January 2023.
The main issue the Tribunal must decide is whether the tenants are liable for damaging the paintwork during the tenancy. The required orders naturally follow once that issue is determined.

Are the tenants liable for 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: s 40(2)(a), 41 and, 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord produced several photographs showing damage to the skirting boards and two doors. However, the landlord had no photographs proving that that damage did not exist prior to the tenancy beginning.
The tenants produced pre-tenancy photographs of the premises both at the beginning of the tenancy and at its end. The pre-tenancy photographs show that the premises’ interior paintwork was in poor condition, and due for repainting. I note, interior paintwork has an expected lifespan of the about five years before repainting will be needed. The photographs suggest that the interior of the house has not been repainted for much longer than that.
The pre-tenancy photographs also show that the premises was not provided to the tenants in a reasonable state of cleanliness. However, the tenants do not make any claim against the landlord for that or for the paintwork being in poor condition. 1 I heard this matter at Waitakere District Court on 31 August 2023.
The tenants accept the skirting boards probably got further scratched during the tenancy, but only through ordinary wear and tear. The tenant in the Tribunal also accepted that her children were probably responsible for several decent sized scratches on two internal doors.
Children under the age of five will make mistakes sometimes and parents cannot realistically be expected to stand over them every minute of the day to ensure they do not do what children are liable to do, including possibly falling over onto or crashing their toys into walls or doors. There are only a few isolated instances of scratches, not a plethora of them. That indicates to me that the tenants did not allow their children to run riot without doing their best to protect the premises from damage.
Although, there are several scratches on the doors, the evidence does not show that the scratches occurred because the tenants were less than reasonably prudent.
It follows, I do not find it proven on the balance of probabilities that the further damage to the paintwork, which was in addition to the already existing damage to the paintwork, was more than fair wear and tear.
It is probable in any event, even if the damage was more than fair wear and tear that the landlord would not have incurred any loss in repairing the paintwork because it was already due for repainting. Bond
The bond is to be released to the tenants. Filing fee
The tenants have wholly succeeded in their claim, the Tribunal must order the landlord to reimburse them for their filing fee. Non-publication
The tenants seek an order for non-publication of their details.
Under s 95A(1) of the RTA, the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have wholly succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered as sought.

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The tenants’ claim for return of their bond is allowed.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [the tenants] immediately.
PR Property Management Limited acting as agent for Dr Kranthi Kumar Pandadu Swarnapuri must immediately pay the tenants $20.44 for their filing fee.

Reasons

One of the tenants attended the hearing. 1 She represented her partner. Her partner had a traumatic accident recently and the couple have three children under the age of five, so it was not practicable for both of the tenants to attend.
Ram Narayanraja attended for the landlord’s agent.
The tenants apply for return of the bond.
The landlord seeks an order that $600.00 be paid from the bond to pay for the cost of paint repairs made after the tenancy ended.
The tenancy began on 31 October 2020 and ended on 23 January 2023.
The main issue the Tribunal must decide is whether the tenants are liable for damaging the paintwork during the tenancy. The required orders naturally follow once that issue is determined.

Are the tenants liable for 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: s 40(2)(a), 41 and, 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord produced several photographs showing damage to the skirting boards and two doors. However, the landlord had no photographs proving that that damage did not exist prior to the tenancy beginning.
The tenants produced pre-tenancy photographs of the premises both at the beginning of the tenancy and at its end. The pre-tenancy photographs show that the premises’ interior paintwork was in poor condition, and due for repainting. I note, interior paintwork has an expected lifespan of the about five years before repainting will be needed. The photographs suggest that the interior of the house has not been repainted for much longer than that.
The pre-tenancy photographs also show that the premises was not provided to the tenants in a reasonable state of cleanliness. However, the tenants do not make any claim against the landlord for that or for the paintwork being in poor condition. 1 I heard this matter at Waitakere District Court on 31 August 2023.
The tenants accept the skirting boards probably got further scratched during the tenancy, but only through ordinary wear and tear. The tenant in the Tribunal also accepted that her children were probably responsible for several decent sized scratches on two internal doors.
Children under the age of five will make mistakes sometimes and parents cannot realistically be expected to stand over them every minute of the day to ensure they do not do what children are liable to do, including possibly falling over onto or crashing their toys into walls or doors. There are only a few isolated instances of scratches, not a plethora of them. That indicates to me that the tenants did not allow their children to run riot without doing their best to protect the premises from damage.
Although, there are several scratches on the doors, the evidence does not show that the scratches occurred because the tenants were less than reasonably prudent.
It follows, I do not find it proven on the balance of probabilities that the further damage to the paintwork, which was in addition to the already existing damage to the paintwork, was more than fair wear and tear.
It is probable in any event, even if the damage was more than fair wear and tear that the landlord would not have incurred any loss in repairing the paintwork because it was already due for repainting. Bond
The bond is to be released to the tenants. Filing fee
The tenants have wholly succeeded in their claim, the Tribunal must order the landlord to reimburse them for their filing fee. Non-publication
The tenants seek an order for non-publication of their details.
Under s 95A(1) of the RTA, the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants have wholly succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4491640 — Cleanliness at 76 Willerton Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4491640 — Cleanliness at 76 Willerton Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions