How much money was awarded in case 4552349?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4552349?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4552349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9512351-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4552349?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4552349?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4552349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9512351-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

154 Piha Road, Piha, Piha 0772 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4552349 — Rent arrears

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4552349?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal declines suppression of the Tenant, Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Ronan Channon must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited - As Agent For Marilyn Houison (Tatton Family Trust) $250.00 immediately, as compensation towards cleaning costs.

All other claims for compensation are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Laban for the landlord and Mr Channon on the phone.

The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and damages to the deck following the end of the tenancy.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all his goods.

The tenant raised the issue that the property was left closed after the weather events in Piha in February 2023 for a few weeks. The property became mouldy and developed mildew.

The tenant said he had real problems to get to the property due to road closures and detours that made it very difficult for him to return to the property. He was not able to do everything he could have about removing all his items at this time.

He says he agreed to the payment of the rent arrears through bond refund and mutual termination date at a mediated conference. He says this was on the basis he was told the premises was liveable. He believes he was misled. Because the previous agreement was made at a mediation, there is limited scope to look further at the issue.

The agent said she did enter the property after the weather event and noticed the place was dingy but did not notice mould and mildew. The agent said she had trouble with communication and contact with the tenant during this time.

From the information provided by the agent and tenant, the mould and mildew clearly became worse during the few weeks the premises was left closed as seen in the photos taken by the tenant taken after the mediation.

The cleaning invoice also covers cleaning mould/mildew. This cannot be a cost borne by the tenant. I award $250.00 towards the reasonable cleaning of the premises.

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 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.

The landlord says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to deck board near front door. The deck is more than 5 years old. It is weathered. There pre-tenancy photos which show an older deck but not close up photos to examine exact condition. The photo showing the damaged deck suggests the nails were loose on one edge and may have caught on something. Noticeably, it seems a newer piece of decking links to the damaged board.

I am not satisfied this is more than fair wear and tear on the deck. It seems there was already an underlying problem.

The claim is dismissed.

The landlord is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order.

If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order 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. Section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Having considered the factors in this case, the landlord has not been wholly or substantively successful. The Tribunal declines suppression.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal declines suppression of the Tenant, Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Ronan Channon must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited - As Agent For Marilyn Houison (Tatton Family Trust) $250.00 immediately, as compensation towards cleaning costs.

All other claims for compensation are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Laban for the landlord and Mr Channon on the phone.

The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and damages to the deck following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all his goods.

The tenant raised the issue that the property was left closed after the weather events in Piha in February 2023 for a few weeks. The property became mouldy and developed mildew.

The cleaning invoice also covers cleaning mould/mildew. This cannot be a cost borne by the tenant. I award $250.00 towards the reasonable cleaning of the premises.

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.

I am not satisfied this is more than fair wear and tear on the deck. It seems there was already an underlying problem.

The claim is dismissed.

The landlord is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order.

Having considered the factors in this case, the landlord has not been wholly or substantively successful. The Tribunal declines suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4552349 — Rent arrears at 154 Piha Road, Piha, Piha 0772

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4552349 — Rent arrears at 154 Piha Road, Piha, Piha 0772

At a glance

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

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