What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4648050 about?

The tribunal order states: Applications for suppression have been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4648050?

He Tenants’ Names And Identifying De…: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648050?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648050?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9518778-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4648050 about?

The tribunal order states: Applications for suppression have been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4648050?

He Tenants’ Names And Identifying De…: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4648050?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4648050?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9518778-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4648050 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4648050 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
he tenants’ names and identifying details. The landlord’s application for suppression is refused. 2. [The tenant/s] to p	$100.00	he tenants’ names and identifying details. The landlord’s application for suppression is refused. 2. [The tenant/s] to p
Net award	$100.00
Bond	$1,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Order

Applications for suppression have been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details. The landlord’s application for suppression is refused.
[The tenant/s] to pay Matthew Slade $100.00 for cleaning from the bond.
The landlord’s claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 [Bond number suppressed] immediately apportioned as follows: Matthew Slade: $100.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,620.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
This tenancy ran from March 2020 to July 2023. During that time the landlord did not carry out any inspections of the premises although he did attend the premises from time to time.
The landlord did not raise any issues of concern with the tenants during the tenancy. There was no joint end of tenancy inspection, and the landlord did not communicate any end of tenancy claims to the tenants after they vacated the premises. The first time that the tenants were aware of the claims made in this application was when they were served with it. Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related 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 (or market rent).
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
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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Carpet
The lounge carpet was stained during the tenancy. The landlord claimed that carpet in a bedroom was also stained. The tenants denied any knowledge of that. The landlord did not produce any evidence of staining in the bedroom and so that has not been proved.
The carpet generally was in poor condition. A photograph of the dining area taken during the tenancy shows it to be threadbare to the extent that, in my view, it constitutes a breach of the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord said that the carpet is likely the original carpet from when the house was built, and it is therefore over 30 years old. That means that it is well beyond its life expectancy.
The landlord said he noticed the stains in the lounge carpet after the tenancy ended. He produced a generic estimate of $190 - $300 for removing stains in two rooms but there has been no attempt to remove the stains. The landlord did not offer a satisfactory explanation for that. New tenants now occupy the premises.
I accept the tenants’ explanation for how the staining occurred. Ink leaked from a commercial photographic printer in the lounge. It is unclear how that happened. There were two second hand printers. The tenants used one for parts.
I find that the tenants should have protected the carpet under the printers from the possibility of leaks or spillages. These were large second-hand commercial printers and arguably they should not have been inside the house at all. The staining in the lounge was therefore the result of the tenants’ carelessness in not protecting the carpet. They also failed to take action to remove the stain after it occurred.
But I do not accept that the landlord will treat the stains. Given the condition of the carpet elsewhere in the premises, two small stains on the lounge carpet are not significant. If they were, the landlord would have had them treated by now. They are obviously not a problem for the current tenants. The carpet is at the end of life and in some places beyond it. The landlord will, or at least should, replace it very soon.
It follows that the landlord has suffered no loss due to the stains and so the claim must be dismissed. Trellis Repair
The landlord claims $4,163.24 as the cost of replacing trellis fencing and a pergola between the paved area and lawn of the premises. It has not been replaced.
After considering the evidence produced by the tenants, I cannot understand why the landlord has made this claim. It is completely devoid of merit. Indeed, the only thing that has been proved is that landlord failed to comply with his maintenance obligations in relation to the trellis and pergola.
The tenants sent several messages to the landlord during the tenancy putting him on notice that the trellis and pergola were in poor condition and that they were likely to fall and possibly injure someone. The tenants also produced photographs showing that posts supporting the trellis and pergola were rotten.
The landlord said that he and his father did some work on the trellis. I was sceptical of his evidence, but he accepted that he did nothing to address the structural problems. He complained that the tenants did not send him photographs of the structure. I explained to him that they were not required to. They put him on notice of the need for repair (or replacement or removal) and it was his duty to inspect the structure and do what was necessary to maintain it.
The tenants sensibly dismantled the structure bit by bit as needed and stored the parts on the premises. Inevitably, there was some damage to elements of the structure during the dismantling.
The tenants did not damage the structure, they removed it because it was in poor condition, and it had become a danger. This claim is therefore dismissed. Rubbish Removal
The landlord claims $270 for the removal of rubbish under a lean-to attached to the garage. It consists of shelving units and a wardrobe.
They were in the garage at the start of the tenancy, but the tenants did not want them there and they moved them to the lean-to. They said they were flimsy and not suitable for use for storage. The landlord was quite happy with that arrangement. There they stayed until the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has relet the premises and the current tenants do not want the items in the garage. He has nowhere else to store them. My sense is that they are not worth the trouble in any case. So, the landlord intends dumping them and wants the tenants to pay the cost of that.
The landlord has created this situation. He was content for the items to be moved and he could have moved them back at the end of the tenancy or required the tenants to do so. He did neither. It is likely that if the items had been moved back into the garage, they would have to be moved out again because the current tenants do not want them there. Put simply, either the landlord could have taken reasonable steps to avoid the situation, or the situation was unavoidable. Either way the tenants are not responsible and so this claim is dismissed. Cleaning
The landlord installed a new black cook top in the premises at the start of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy one of the elements had a conspicuous white ring around it. The tenants denied that they were responsible for that or that they had had not acted reasonably to keep the cooktop clean. They denied that pots were allowed to boil over to cause the ring.
The landlord claims $100 for cleaning the cooktop. He produced an estimate for that amount, but he cleaned it himself. He said that it took him several days to do so. I find it difficult to believe that it could take so long, but the landlord has rightly limited his claim to the estimate, so it is not necessary to consider whether the time taken was reasonable.
I found the tenants to be eminently credible, but I am faced with a situation where a new cooktop was left stained after a three-year tenancy. That should not happen if reasonable steps were taken to keep it clean. Possibly there is something about the cooktop that makes it susceptible to staining, but there is no evidence of that. It follows that I must award the claim. Filing Fee
The landlord has had very limited success and so I do not award the filing fee. If the landlord had been reasonable and communicated with the tenants, this application should not have been necessary. Suppression
For the same reason I refuse the landlord’s request for name suppression. I grant the tenants name suppression. There is no public interest in identifying them. As far as I can see they have been model tenants and it would be unfair and prejudicial to them to publish their names.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4648050 — net $100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
he tenants’ names and identifying details. The landlord’s application for suppression is refused. 2. [The tenant/s] to p	$100.00	he tenants’ names and identifying details. The landlord’s application for suppression is refused. 2. [The tenant/s] to p
Net award	$100.00
Bond	$1,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$100.00

Order

Applications for suppression have been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details. The landlord’s application for suppression is refused.
[The tenant/s] to pay Matthew Slade $100.00 for cleaning from the bond.
The landlord’s claims are otherwise dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,720.00 [Bond number suppressed] immediately apportioned as follows: Matthew Slade: $100.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,620.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
This tenancy ran from March 2020 to July 2023. During that time the landlord did not carry out any inspections of the premises although he did attend the premises from time to time.
The landlord did not raise any issues of concern with the tenants during the tenancy. There was no joint end of tenancy inspection, and the landlord did not communicate any end of tenancy claims to the tenants after they vacated the premises. The first time that the tenants were aware of the claims made in this application was when they were served with it. Law
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish.
The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related 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 (or market rent).
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
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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Carpet
The lounge carpet was stained during the tenancy. The landlord claimed that carpet in a bedroom was also stained. The tenants denied any knowledge of that. The landlord did not produce any evidence of staining in the bedroom and so that has not been proved.
The carpet generally was in poor condition. A photograph of the dining area taken during the tenancy shows it to be threadbare to the extent that, in my view, it constitutes a breach of the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The landlord said that the carpet is likely the original carpet from when the house was built, and it is therefore over 30 years old. That means that it is well beyond its life expectancy.
The landlord said he noticed the stains in the lounge carpet after the tenancy ended. He produced a generic estimate of $190 - $300 for removing stains in two rooms but there has been no attempt to remove the stains. The landlord did not offer a satisfactory explanation for that. New tenants now occupy the premises.
I accept the tenants’ explanation for how the staining occurred. Ink leaked from a commercial photographic printer in the lounge. It is unclear how that happened. There were two second hand printers. The tenants used one for parts.
I find that the tenants should have protected the carpet under the printers from the possibility of leaks or spillages. These were large second-hand commercial printers and arguably they should not have been inside the house at all. The staining in the lounge was therefore the result of the tenants’ carelessness in not protecting the carpet. They also failed to take action to remove the stain after it occurred.
But I do not accept that the landlord will treat the stains. Given the condition of the carpet elsewhere in the premises, two small stains on the lounge carpet are not significant. If they were, the landlord would have had them treated by now. They are obviously not a problem for the current tenants. The carpet is at the end of life and in some places beyond it. The landlord will, or at least should, replace it very soon.
It follows that the landlord has suffered no loss due to the stains and so the claim must be dismissed. Trellis Repair
The landlord claims $4,163.24 as the cost of replacing trellis fencing and a pergola between the paved area and lawn of the premises. It has not been replaced.
After considering the evidence produced by the tenants, I cannot understand why the landlord has made this claim. It is completely devoid of merit. Indeed, the only thing that has been proved is that landlord failed to comply with his maintenance obligations in relation to the trellis and pergola.
The tenants sent several messages to the landlord during the tenancy putting him on notice that the trellis and pergola were in poor condition and that they were likely to fall and possibly injure someone. The tenants also produced photographs showing that posts supporting the trellis and pergola were rotten.
The landlord said that he and his father did some work on the trellis. I was sceptical of his evidence, but he accepted that he did nothing to address the structural problems. He complained that the tenants did not send him photographs of the structure. I explained to him that they were not required to. They put him on notice of the need for repair (or replacement or removal) and it was his duty to inspect the structure and do what was necessary to maintain it.
The tenants sensibly dismantled the structure bit by bit as needed and stored the parts on the premises. Inevitably, there was some damage to elements of the structure during the dismantling.
The tenants did not damage the structure, they removed it because it was in poor condition, and it had become a danger. This claim is therefore dismissed. Rubbish Removal
The landlord claims $270 for the removal of rubbish under a lean-to attached to the garage. It consists of shelving units and a wardrobe.
They were in the garage at the start of the tenancy, but the tenants did not want them there and they moved them to the lean-to. They said they were flimsy and not suitable for use for storage. The landlord was quite happy with that arrangement. There they stayed until the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has relet the premises and the current tenants do not want the items in the garage. He has nowhere else to store them. My sense is that they are not worth the trouble in any case. So, the landlord intends dumping them and wants the tenants to pay the cost of that.
The landlord has created this situation. He was content for the items to be moved and he could have moved them back at the end of the tenancy or required the tenants to do so. He did neither. It is likely that if the items had been moved back into the garage, they would have to be moved out again because the current tenants do not want them there. Put simply, either the landlord could have taken reasonable steps to avoid the situation, or the situation was unavoidable. Either way the tenants are not responsible and so this claim is dismissed. Cleaning
The landlord installed a new black cook top in the premises at the start of the tenancy. At the end of the tenancy one of the elements had a conspicuous white ring around it. The tenants denied that they were responsible for that or that they had had not acted reasonably to keep the cooktop clean. They denied that pots were allowed to boil over to cause the ring.
The landlord claims $100 for cleaning the cooktop. He produced an estimate for that amount, but he cleaned it himself. He said that it took him several days to do so. I find it difficult to believe that it could take so long, but the landlord has rightly limited his claim to the estimate, so it is not necessary to consider whether the time taken was reasonable.
I found the tenants to be eminently credible, but I am faced with a situation where a new cooktop was left stained after a three-year tenancy. That should not happen if reasonable steps were taken to keep it clean. Possibly there is something about the cooktop that makes it susceptible to staining, but there is no evidence of that. It follows that I must award the claim. Filing Fee
The landlord has had very limited success and so I do not award the filing fee. If the landlord had been reasonable and communicated with the tenants, this application should not have been necessary. Suppression
For the same reason I refuse the landlord’s request for name suppression. I grant the tenants name suppression. There is no public interest in identifying them. As far as I can see they have been model tenants and it would be unfair and prejudicial to them to publish their names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648050 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4648050 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions