How much money was awarded in case 4519849?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4519849?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4519849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9219096-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4519849?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4519849?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4519849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9219096-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23B O'Meara Street, Swanson, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4519849 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4519849?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4519849 — net $1,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Carpet	$500.00	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Walls	$500.00	Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,020.44
Bond	$2,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,020.44

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Saskia Corrigan and Jordan Rogers to pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited $1,020.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 (6399563-010) immediately apportioned as follows: Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited: $1,020.44 Saskia Corrigan and Jordan Rogers: $1279.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenancy which lasted just over two years ended on 09 March 2023.

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.

The landlord presented photographs that showed damage to the walls including small chips, small gouges and some pen marks and indentations to the plaster board, and two very small red stains, and one larger rust mark (approximately 100mm x 100mm) in three different rooms, to the carpet.

The property was new at the beginning of the tenancy.

The tenant accepted that they had caused the damage but submitted that all of the damage was fair wear and tear. The tenant explained they have two young children who were aged two and three at the beginning of the tenancy. One of them has autism and is non-verbal.

The tenant also made a considerable effort to repair the damage that they caused. This included filling some of the gouges and dents, and repainting. When the paint colour didn’t match well, the tenant sought out the correct colour paint from the original building specifications. A less than perfect match was still the result, and on making enquiries about this they learnt that the house would have originally been spray painted, and any attempt at touching-up by brush is not going to look great.

The tenant claimed that one of the red marks had successfully been removed from the carpet. The landlord disagreed with this.

The tenant also raised that they had had many routine inspections and none of the damage had been raised after these inspections. This meant that they had a reduced opportunity to remedy the damage.

The landlord accepted that the property had been well presented at inspections and that none of the damage had been picked up during inspections.

I take into consideration that this was a new house, it was rented to a family with two young children, and the tenancy included two lockdowns as a result of COVID-19.

In the circumstances I find that some, but not all of the damage to the walls was as a result of carelessness. I find that the damage caused by the children was careless, the damage to the wall caused by a computer repeatedly knocking the wall was careless and that some of the other dents may have been careless. In setting an amount I also take into account the tenant’s submissions regarding the damage not being picked up after routine inspections, and the efforts the tenants took to make right the damage at the end of the tenancy.

I find that the very small red mark (or two) on the carpet is fair wear and tear for a two-year tenancy. I find that the rust mark on the carpet, caused by the sofa is careless.

The amounts ordered are 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Because Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4519849 — net $1,020.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Carpet	$500.00	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Walls	$500.00	Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,020.44
Bond	$2,300.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,020.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Saskia Corrigan and Jordan Rogers to pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited $1,020.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,300.00 (6399563-010) immediately apportioned as follows: Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited: $1,020.44 Saskia Corrigan and Jordan Rogers: $1279.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy which lasted just over two years ended on 09 March 2023.

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.
The landlord presented photographs that showed damage to the walls including small chips, small gouges and some pen marks and indentations to the plaster board, and two very small red stains, and one larger rust mark (approximately 100mm x 100mm) in three different rooms, to the carpet.
The property was new at the beginning of the tenancy.
The tenant accepted that they had caused the damage but submitted that all of the damage was fair wear and tear. The tenant explained they have two young children who were aged two and three at the beginning of the tenancy. One of them has autism and is non-verbal.
The tenant also made a considerable effort to repair the damage that they caused. This included filling some of the gouges and dents, and repainting. When the paint colour didn’t match well, the tenant sought out the correct colour paint from the original building specifications. A less than perfect match was still the result, and on making enquiries about this they learnt that the house would have originally been spray painted, and any attempt at touching-up by brush is not going to look great.
The tenant claimed that one of the red marks had successfully been removed from the carpet. The landlord disagreed with this.
The tenant also raised that they had had many routine inspections and none of the damage had been raised after these inspections. This meant that they had a reduced opportunity to remedy the damage.
The landlord accepted that the property had been well presented at inspections and that none of the damage had been picked up during inspections.
I take into consideration that this was a new house, it was rented to a family with two young children, and the tenancy included two lockdowns as a result of COVID-19.
In the circumstances I find that some, but not all of the damage to the walls was as a result of carelessness. I find that the damage caused by the children was careless, the damage to the wall caused by a computer repeatedly knocking the wall was careless and that some of the other dents may have been careless. In setting an amount I also take into account the tenant’s submissions regarding the damage not being picked up after routine inspections, and the efforts the tenants took to make right the damage at the end of the tenancy.
I find that the very small red mark (or two) on the carpet is fair wear and tear for a two-year tenancy. I find that the rust mark on the carpet, caused by the sofa is careless.
The amounts ordered are 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 have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4519849 — Property damage at 23B O'Meara Street, Swanson, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4519849 — Property damage at 23B O'Meara Street, Swanson, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions