What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4547949 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 4547949?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4547949?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4547949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9339936-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4547949 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 4547949?

Cleaning: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4547949?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4547949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9339936-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

21 Bartholomew Drive, Nawton, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4547949 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4547949 — net $94.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$115.00		Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$115.00	$20.44
Net award	$94.56
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$94.56

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4547949 — net $94.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$115.00		Carpet Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$115.00	$20.44
Net award	$94.56
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$94.56

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Ravindra Sunny Ram and Swetha Shivani Ram $94.56 from the bond, as set out in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Ravindra Sunny Ram and Swetha Shivani Ram: $94.56 [The tenant/s]: $2,305.44
The landlord’s remaining applications are dismissed.

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 tenant sought return of the bond.

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.
The landlord alleges that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The application referred to food waste left in the food bin. The landlord indicated that an amended claim had been filed for cleaning costs, however neither that material or amendment is on the file before me. I dealt with the application relating to the food bin only.
In relation to the food bin, the landlord’s evidence is that food scraps were left in the bin. The Council would charge to replace the bin. A quote for that was provided.
In evidence, the landlord confirmed that the bin was not replaced. Instead, the new tenants washed it out. No claim was made against the landlord, by the new tenant, for that.
Accordingly, the landlord has suffered no loss and the application is dismissed.

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.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Staining to the carpet in the lounge and bedroom. b. Damage to the vinyl in the laundry. c. Damage to the bedroom door. d. Damage to the paint in two bedrooms. Carpet
The landlord seeks compensation for stain removal in the lounge and bedroom. There are three stains in total. The tenant accepts that the stains were likely caused during the tenancy, and she has small children and drinks may have been spilt in those areas.
The landlord has not had the stain removal done and I have only been provided with a quote for removal.
Photographs of the stains were received after the hearing (they were referred to in the hearing) and I have considered these.
Given it is 6 months since the tenancy ended and the stains have not been removed, I have some reservations about the landlord’s claim. However, the tenant agreed that she had offered to arrange and pay for stain removal at the end of the tenancy. She confirms that the quote provided is reasonable.
The tenant is to be commended for her honesty in this regard.
On a consent basis, the cost of stain removal is ordered. Vinyl
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the vinyl in the laundry. She says this was caused by the removal of the tenant’s washing machine.
The vinyl has not been replaced. However, the landlord provided a quote for $1,195 to replace the affected vinyl.
The landlord confirmed that the vinyl is at least 20 years old.
The premises has been re-tenanted for $645 per week ($45 per week more than the tenant was paying). So, there is no loss, in terms of rent, from this damage.
The tenant accepts that the vinyl did tear. However, her evidence is that there was water damage to that area of the laundry prior to the tenancy. She points to the existence of bubbles, or lifting, of the vinyl in places, and damage to the flooring under the washing machine as evidence of this. Some photographs of the floor were provided by the tenant.
The tenant’s position is that the washing machine was professionally installed, and that appropriate care was taken when removing it.
The tenant’s position is that the vinyl was weakened by water exposure and age and that those factors contributed to the damage.
In addition, as I discussed with the landlord at the hearing, I must take into account depreciation and betterment. 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 vinyl at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the vinyl was in an average to poor condition at the commencement of the tenancy. In assessing the tenant’s evidence on this point, I consider that her willingness to concede matters unfavourable to her, such as liability for the carpet staining, gives credibility to her evidence in relation to these other matters.
Further, the vinyl is more than 20 years old. Vinyl has an expected lifespan of 10-18 years. This vinyl was beyond even the highest end of that range.
Accordingly, the vinyl has essentially been depreciated to zero value.
I have carefully considered whether some compensation should be paid by the tenant to take into account that there was damage, despite a strict approach to depreciation giving the vinyl a zero value. I am mindful that expected lifespans are just that, expectations. Absent the damage, the landlord would not have considered replacing the vinyl.
However, I am satisfied that this is not appropriate in this case. I reach this conclusion because the landlord has not actually replaced the vinyl. So there has been no out of pocket costs incurred. Further, the landlord has re-tenanted the property at a higher rent than the tenant was paying, despite the damage, so there is no loss in terms of rental value.
Accordingly, the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Bedroom door
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to a sliding door in the bedroom. The damage consists of the breakage of a plastic runner, which keeps the door aligned during operation.
The tenant accepts that the runner broke. She says that the door was in the same condition at the start of the tenancy and the runner was replaced by the landlord with a replacement part. She estimates the value of that part at no more than $10.
The landlord seeks $100 in compensation. No evidence was provided in support of this amount, and the landlord accepts that it is her own estimate, rather than one from a professional.
Again, the repairs have not been undertaken in the 6 months since the tenancy ended, and the premises has been re-tenanted.
I do not accept that estimating this cost is appropriate, particularly given the nature of the repairs required and the quantum of the estimate.
I find that the landlord has not proved any actual loss to the required standard and the application is dismissed. Walls/Paint
The landlord seeks compensation for the costs of paint matching and repainting walls in two bedrooms.
One bedroom has damage from the tenant’s 3-year-old daughter knocking over a fan. The tenant has patched the damage, but not repainted it.
The damage in the other room comes from the removal of screws used to affix furniture to the wall to avoid injury to the tenant’s children. The landlord says the tenant did not seek permission to use screws for this. The tenant says that she did seek the landlord’s permission, and permission was granted on the condition that any damage was repaired. I accept the tenant’s evidence on this point. She was an honest and reliable witness and even her evidence on this point included details not entirely favourable to her.
The tenant says she endeavoured to repair the damage, but the landlord was slow to reply to her questions in relation to the appropriate paint colour, leaving her insufficient time to get colour matches. The landlord says she was slow to reply because of work commitments.
The painting has not been done and the $500 compensation sought by the landlord is, again, an estimate without professional input.
Further, I note the evidence and photographs from the tenant showing patched and unpainted walls in the living room at the start of the tenancy. While this was not the same room, I consider it relevant to my assessment of the condition of paint in the premises as a whole.
Again, I note the premises has been re-tenanted for higher rent, despite these issues.
In terms of liability, I consider the damage caused by the tenant’s daughter knocking over the fan to be accidental damage, rather than careless or intentional damage. I find that the tenant has disproved liability for this damage.
In relation to the screw holes, I consider the tenant would have been liable for this damage, had the landlord been able to quantify it. However, I do not consider that an estimate is sufficient evidence on which to make an award.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application is dismissed. Filing fee
As the tenant has substantially succeeded with her application, I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord has not substantially succeeded with her claim. Accordingly, no order is made in relation to that filing fee.. Suppression
The tenant sought suppression of her name. As she has been substantially successful in her claim and her defence of that landlord’s claim she is entitled to suppression.
The landlord was somewhat ambivalent about name suppression. I have considered that position on its merits.
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
In the present case, the landlord was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the landlord having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the landlord’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the landlord’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. .

Tenancy Tribunal case 4547949 — Cleanliness at 21 Bartholomew Drive, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4547949 — Cleanliness at 21 Bartholomew Drive, Nawton, Hamilton 3200

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

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

Frequently asked questions