How much money was awarded in case 4655164?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Remove cat door from front door, rep…: $892.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655164?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655164?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9518282-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4655164?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Remove cat door from front door, rep…: $892.58 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4655164?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4655164?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9518282-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4655164 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4655164 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4655164 — net $913.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Remove cat door from front door, replace panel and paint door	$892.58	Repairs: Remove cat door from front door, replace panel and paint door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$913.02
Bond	$1,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$913.02

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details.

Christine Wotherspoon is to pay [The landlord/s] $913.02 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $913.02 Christine Wotherspoon: $86.98

Reasons

[Mr L] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlords and Ms Wotherspoon attended by telephone.

The landlord has applied for compensation for reinstatement of the front door, partial refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for reinstating the door?

Section 42 and 42A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1886 (the Act), provide that the tenant may make an alternation to the premises with the written consent of the landlord and the landlord may impose reasonable conditions on that consent.

During the tenancy, the tenant asked if she could install a cat door in the front door of the property. The landlord gave evidence that he verbally agreed to this request on the basis that the cat door be removed and the door reinstated at the end of the tenancy.

The cat door was installed but was not removed at the end of the tenancy. The landlord wants the door reinstated to its original condition.

The landlord obtained a quotation for the repair, painting, labour and dumping costs required to reinstate the door to its original condition, being $892.58.

The landlord provided the quotation to the tenant and, after some written correspondence between the parties by text message and email, the tenant agreed that the sum requested could be deducted from her bond. Before signing the bond refund form, the tenant changed her mind.

Although section 42 anticipates that the landlord provide written consent to the alteration, in this case, the landlord does not deny consenting to the change.

Section 42A allows the landlord to impose reasonable conditions on the consent and I find that reinstatement is a reasonable condition in this instance. Further, the written evidence provided by the landlord supports the landlords’ claim that the parties agreed that the cat door would be removed, and the door reinstated, at the tenant’s expense, at the end of the tenancy.

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

As [The applicant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Should a suppression order be made?

The landlords applied for a suppression order in their application.

Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

The landlords have been wholly successful in their claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlords’ names and identifying details be suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4655164 — net $913.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Remove cat door from front door, replace panel and paint door	$892.58	Repairs: Remove cat door from front door, replace panel and paint door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$913.02
Bond	$1,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$913.02

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details.
Christine Wotherspoon is to pay [The landlord/s] $913.02 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $913.02 Christine Wotherspoon: $86.98

Reasons

[Mr L] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlords and Ms Wotherspoon attended by telephone.
The landlord has applied for compensation for reinstatement of the front door, partial refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for reinstating the door?

Section 42 and 42A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1886 (the Act), provide that the tenant may make an alternation to the premises with the written consent of the landlord and the landlord may impose reasonable conditions on that consent.
During the tenancy, the tenant asked if she could install a cat door in the front door of the property. The landlord gave evidence that he verbally agreed to this request on the basis that the cat door be removed and the door reinstated at the end of the tenancy.
The cat door was installed but was not removed at the end of the tenancy. The landlord wants the door reinstated to its original condition.
The landlord obtained a quotation for the repair, painting, labour and dumping costs required to reinstate the door to its original condition, being $892.58.
The landlord provided the quotation to the tenant and, after some written correspondence between the parties by text message and email, the tenant agreed that the sum requested could be deducted from her bond. Before signing the bond refund form, the tenant changed her mind.
Although section 42 anticipates that the landlord provide written consent to the alteration, in this case, the landlord does not deny consenting to the change.
Section 42A allows the landlord to impose reasonable conditions on the consent and I find that reinstatement is a reasonable condition in this instance. Further, the written evidence provided by the landlord supports the landlords’ claim that the parties agreed that the cat door would be removed, and the door reinstated, at the tenant’s expense, at the end of the tenancy.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
As [The applicant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Should a suppression order be made?

The landlords applied for a suppression order in their application.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The landlords have been wholly successful in their claims and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlords’ names and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655164 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4655164 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for reinstating the door?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for reinstating the door?

Should a suppression order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions