How much money was awarded in case 4687229?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4687229?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4687229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9865418-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4687229?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4687229?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4687229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9865418-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4687229 — Mould & damp

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4687229 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

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

Barfoot & Thompson Limited - Mt Roskill As Agent For Lancy Mcrae to pay immediately, to reimburse them for the application filing fee they paid to the Tribunal.

The Bond Centre is to pay the remainder of the bond of () to the tenants immediately.

The landlord’s application for compensation for general damages and cleaning costs are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the remainder of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants refuted causing damage and leaving the premises in an unclean and untidy state. They also refuted failing to remove their rubbish. They sought the remainder of their bond to be refunded and their filing fee reimbursed.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenants left the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and removed all of their rubbish. There were three rubbish items left in a shared area that the tenants denied responsibility for. They have not purchased any Haier appliances and say they did not access the area where the Haier cardboard was found. They also stated the two pieces of rubbish in the shared areas are not theirs and could have blown in from next door. The small amounts of mould marks are not enough to be deemed to be more than what can be expected at the end of a tenancy. The tenants are not required to leave the premises in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. It is reasonable for a landlord to have to undertake some remedial cleaning before letting the premises to a new tenant.

The $345.00 claimed by the landlord for cleaning are not proven and the claim is dismissed.

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 occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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). See section 49B(3)(a) 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.

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. See section 49B(1) RTA.

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 is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

There were a few scratch marks on the bench top where the tenants say they kept their dish rack during the tenancy. The premises were in new condition at the start of the tenancy and the pre tenancy inspection and post tenancy inspections show the damage was caused during the tenancy.

After listening to the tenants’ explanations, they kept the premises clean and tidy and ensured that they took good care of it. They did not have a dish rack that was metal and that may cause the damage shown. They did not engage in any careless or deliberate act that may have led to the damage shown by the landlord. The tenants have disproved liability for the damage.

I find the damage did not result from the tenants deliberate or careless actions and is therefore classified as fair wear and tear. The landlord’s claim for $299.00 to repair the bench top is therefore dismissed. Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

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

Barfoot & Thompson Limited - Mt Roskill As Agent For Lancy Mcrae to pay immediately, to reimburse them for the application filing fee they paid to the Tribunal.

The Bond Centre is to pay the remainder of the bond of () to the tenants immediately.

The landlord’s application for compensation for general damages and cleaning costs are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the remainder of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

The $345.00 claimed by the landlord for cleaning are not proven and the claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4687229 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4687229 — Mould & damp

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

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

Frequently asked questions