What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4644749 about?

The tribunal order states: Alan Woodley, Robert Campion and Christine Campion must pay [The

How much money was awarded in case 4644749?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4644749?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4644749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9605923-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4644749 about?

The tribunal order states: Alan Woodley, Robert Campion and Christine Campion must pay [The

How much money was awarded in case 4644749?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4644749?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4644749?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9605923-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1 Delta Mews Place, Clive, Clive 4102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4644749 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4644749 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess (benchtop claim	$500.00	Insurance excess (benchtop claim
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

Alan Woodley, Robert Campion and Christine Campion must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

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. Background
The tenancy began on 23 June 2022 and ended on 24 June 2023. Mr Woodley moved out on that date, Mr and Mrs Campion had moved out a week earlier.
The final inspection was done by the property manager who was then acting as agent for the owner though that agency has now ended.
Following the final inspection, the property manager was satisfied that the tenants had met their exit obligations apart from damage to the kitchen benchtop which was the subject of an insurance claim. The amount of the insurance excess, $500.00 was retained at the Bond Centre pending resolution of that dispute. The remainder of the bond was released to the tenants.
Exit inspection photographs were taken by the property manager on 29 May 2023.
The owner then did a further inspection and was not satisfied with the condition of the premises. Additional photographs were taken by the owner and sent to the property manager a couple of days later – by then a week after the tenants had left.
This application sought compensation of $1,682.03 for: Shower Clean $149.5 Pipe clips broken in hot water cylinder $77.63 Damaged Flooring tiles$282.90 Carpet stain and repair $75.00 Insurance excess$500.00 Kitchen Cabinet $495.00 Curtain replacement $102.00
Before the hearing the landlord withdrew the claims for the tiles, carpet and curtains.
During the hearing the tenants confirmed that they accepted liability for the insurance excess on the claim for the kitchen bench which they accidentally damaged.
That left in dispute the claims for cleaning of the showers, replacement of the HWC pipe clips and repair of the kitchen cabinet.

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

The tenants were required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenants are adamant that the premises were left more than reasonably clean and tidy. They point to confirmation given to them by the property manager after the final inspection had been completed, that they had left the premises in very good condition.
Photographs have been provided showing what appear to be residues in the black tiled showers. However, those photographs were taken several days after the tenants had vacated and the tenants’ evidence is that neighbours they are on good terms with, told them that tradesmen were working at the premises between the date the tenants vacated and the date the photographs were taken.
The best evidence of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy appears to be the final inspection, which the owner’s agent was satisfied with, as illustrated by release of the bond. The owner is bound by the decisions of his agent.
Further and fundamentally, s.49 requires that, “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach.....”
In these circumstances, had the landlord been dissatisfied with the state of the showers when the tenants left, it would have been reasonable for them to have been told, so they could remedy any shortcomings before being asked to pay commercial cleaning charges. There was no immediate new tenancy or other circumstance that would have prevented that happening. It is not reasonable in my view for the tenants to be told by the owner’s agent that their obligations had been met, to then face a claim for reimbursement of these charges.
I am not satisfied that the claim is proven, and it is declined.

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 tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage
The tenants are adamant that they were not aware of the HWC clips having been broken when they vacated and there was no record of the damage when the final inspection was done. The evidence of the damage is by way of photographs taken by the owner around a week after the tenants vacated, during which time trades’ work was being completed.
I do not find it proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy. Again the evidence shows that no opportunity for mitigation of loss was provided to the tenants. That claim is declined
As regards the claim for damage to the kitchen cupboard again the tenants are adamant there was no such damage there when they vacated, and the damage was not noted during the final inspection.
Additionally, while the landlord has provided a repair quote, no repair work has been undertaken, new tenants are occupying the premises at no less rent that the tenants were paying, so at this point the landlord has incurred no loss to compensate. That claim too is declined.
The landlord was justified in bringing this application to secure release of the remaining bond to cover the insurance excess claim and should be refunded the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4644749 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess (benchtop claim	$500.00	Insurance excess (benchtop claim
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

Alan Woodley, Robert Campion and Christine Campion must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

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. Background
The tenancy began on 23 June 2022 and ended on 24 June 2023. Mr Woodley moved out on that date, Mr and Mrs Campion had moved out a week earlier.
The final inspection was done by the property manager who was then acting as agent for the owner though that agency has now ended.
Following the final inspection, the property manager was satisfied that the tenants had met their exit obligations apart from damage to the kitchen benchtop which was the subject of an insurance claim. The amount of the insurance excess, $500.00 was retained at the Bond Centre pending resolution of that dispute. The remainder of the bond was released to the tenants.
Exit inspection photographs were taken by the property manager on 29 May 2023.
The owner then did a further inspection and was not satisfied with the condition of the premises. Additional photographs were taken by the owner and sent to the property manager a couple of days later – by then a week after the tenants had left.
This application sought compensation of $1,682.03 for: Shower Clean $149.5 Pipe clips broken in hot water cylinder $77.63 Damaged Flooring tiles$282.90 Carpet stain and repair $75.00 Insurance excess$500.00 Kitchen Cabinet $495.00 Curtain replacement $102.00
Before the hearing the landlord withdrew the claims for the tiles, carpet and curtains.
During the hearing the tenants confirmed that they accepted liability for the insurance excess on the claim for the kitchen bench which they accidentally damaged.
That left in dispute the claims for cleaning of the showers, replacement of the HWC pipe clips and repair of the kitchen cabinet.

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

The tenants were required to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The tenants are adamant that the premises were left more than reasonably clean and tidy. They point to confirmation given to them by the property manager after the final inspection had been completed, that they had left the premises in very good condition.
Photographs have been provided showing what appear to be residues in the black tiled showers. However, those photographs were taken several days after the tenants had vacated and the tenants’ evidence is that neighbours they are on good terms with, told them that tradesmen were working at the premises between the date the tenants vacated and the date the photographs were taken.
The best evidence of the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy appears to be the final inspection, which the owner’s agent was satisfied with, as illustrated by release of the bond. The owner is bound by the decisions of his agent.
Further and fundamentally, s.49 requires that, “Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach.....”
In these circumstances, had the landlord been dissatisfied with the state of the showers when the tenants left, it would have been reasonable for them to have been told, so they could remedy any shortcomings before being asked to pay commercial cleaning charges. There was no immediate new tenancy or other circumstance that would have prevented that happening. It is not reasonable in my view for the tenants to be told by the owner’s agent that their obligations had been met, to then face a claim for reimbursement of these charges.
I am not satisfied that the claim is proven, and it is declined.

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 tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage
The tenants are adamant that they were not aware of the HWC clips having been broken when they vacated and there was no record of the damage when the final inspection was done. The evidence of the damage is by way of photographs taken by the owner around a week after the tenants vacated, during which time trades’ work was being completed.
I do not find it proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy. Again the evidence shows that no opportunity for mitigation of loss was provided to the tenants. That claim is declined
As regards the claim for damage to the kitchen cupboard again the tenants are adamant there was no such damage there when they vacated, and the damage was not noted during the final inspection.
Additionally, while the landlord has provided a repair quote, no repair work has been undertaken, new tenants are occupying the premises at no less rent that the tenants were paying, so at this point the landlord has incurred no loss to compensate. That claim too is declined.
The landlord was justified in bringing this application to secure release of the remaining bond to cover the insurance excess claim and should be refunded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4644749 — Property damage at 1 Delta Mews Place, Clive, Clive 4102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4644749 — Property damage at 1 Delta Mews Place, Clive, Clive 4102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions