What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4591152 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant must pay the landlords $600.00 which they may recover from the

How much money was awarded in case 4591152?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4591152?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4591152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9663164-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4591152 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant must pay the landlords $600.00 which they may recover from the

How much money was awarded in case 4591152?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4591152?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4591152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9663164-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room 1, 11A Kerria Place, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4591152 — Boarding House

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant applied for refund of his bond. The landlords have applied for compensation from the tenant’s bond, which they hold. Background

The parties entered into an agreement described as a Flat/ House sharing agreement. The agreement specifically states that such agreements are not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act. It also stipulates that in the event of any dispute it will be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.

That is appropriate, as the agreement provides for the tenant to share the landlords’ home and so falls within the exemption in s.5(n) under which the RTA does not apply, “where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family”

I made it clear to the parties that if either of them objected the matter could not be heard by the Tribunal. Both parties however confirmed that they intended and wanted the RTA to apply to their agreement and that the Tribunal determine their claims.

In terms of s.8, the hearing proceeded on that basis.

Although the first application was filed by the tenant seeking recovery of his bond of $600.00, the hearing proceeded as a claim by the landlords for compensation. The landlords confirmed that they only sought to be able to retain the tenant’s bond.

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.

There is no evidence suggesting that any intentional damage was caused by the tenant.

The evidence provided by the landlords persuades me on the balance of probabilities that damage was caused to the premises during the tenancy through indentations, scratches and marks on walls, paint damage caused by removing 3M type adhesive hooks from the walls (removed by the landlord not the tenant) and by stains caused to carpets and the bed.

The landlord’s evidence shows that the repair cost is well in excess of the $600.00 bond and the landlord is entitled to retain the tenant’s bond to offset those losses.

The tenant was accompanied at the hearing by his partner Ms W who was introduced as a support person.

It only became apparent when I had outlined the above findings to the parties at the end of the time allotted for the hearing, that Ms W too had signed a separate tenancy agreement with the landlords and had also apaid them a bond. Ostensibly that agreement was for a separate room in the landlords’ home, although in practice they shared the tenant’s room.

The tenant sought recovery of Ms W’s bond as well as his. The landlords sought to retain her bond to offset their claimed losses.

There is no basis on which I can make an Order in respect of Ms W’s bond as she is not a party to these proceedings.

I therefore limit my Order to the tenant’s bond. Any party, including of course Ms W, is free to make an application in respect of her bond. Now that the parties are aware of the jurisdictional issue, any such application should properly be filed in the Disputes Tribunal and a copy of this Order made available to the referee.

No Order is made regarding the filing fee.

Order

The tenant must pay the landlords $600.00 which they may recover from the bond held by them.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for refund of his bond. The landlords have applied for compensation from the tenant’s bond, which they hold. Background
The parties entered into an agreement described as a Flat/ House sharing agreement. The agreement specifically states that such agreements are not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act. It also stipulates that in the event of any dispute it will be determined by the Disputes Tribunal.
That is appropriate, as the agreement provides for the tenant to share the landlords’ home and so falls within the exemption in s.5(n) under which the RTA does not apply, “where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family”
I made it clear to the parties that if either of them objected the matter could not be heard by the Tribunal. Both parties however confirmed that they intended and wanted the RTA to apply to their agreement and that the Tribunal determine their claims.
In terms of s.8, the hearing proceeded on that basis.
Although the first application was filed by the tenant seeking recovery of his bond of $600.00, the hearing proceeded as a claim by the landlords for compensation. The landlords confirmed that they only sought to be able to retain the tenant’s bond.

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.
There is no evidence suggesting that any intentional damage was caused by the tenant.
The evidence provided by the landlords persuades me on the balance of probabilities that damage was caused to the premises during the tenancy through indentations, scratches and marks on walls, paint damage caused by removing 3M type adhesive hooks from the walls (removed by the landlord not the tenant) and by stains caused to carpets and the bed.
The landlord’s evidence shows that the repair cost is well in excess of the $600.00 bond and the landlord is entitled to retain the tenant’s bond to offset those losses.
The tenant was accompanied at the hearing by his partner Ms W who was introduced as a support person.
It only became apparent when I had outlined the above findings to the parties at the end of the time allotted for the hearing, that Ms W too had signed a separate tenancy agreement with the landlords and had also apaid them a bond. Ostensibly that agreement was for a separate room in the landlords’ home, although in practice they shared the tenant’s room.
The tenant sought recovery of Ms W’s bond as well as his. The landlords sought to retain her bond to offset their claimed losses.
There is no basis on which I can make an Order in respect of Ms W’s bond as she is not a party to these proceedings.
I therefore limit my Order to the tenant’s bond. Any party, including of course Ms W, is free to make an application in respect of her bond. Now that the parties are aware of the jurisdictional issue, any such application should properly be filed in the Disputes Tribunal and a copy of this Order made available to the referee.
No Order is made regarding the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4591152 — Boarding House at Room 1, 11A Kerria Place, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4591152 — Boarding House at Room 1, 11A Kerria Place, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions