How much money was awarded in case 4699709?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4699709?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4699709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9646809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4699709?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4699709?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4699709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9646809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

30 Koro Lane, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4699709 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4699709 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 4699709 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

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

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $0.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the respondents immediately.

Investment Portfolio Management Limited Partnership As Agent For 820 - Investment Amateurs Ltd C/O Duval Portfolio Management must pay the tenants $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord claimed compensation of $207.00 for a wet clean to further remove a stain on the couch cushion following the end of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The tenants applied to have their full bond refunded, without deduction for the couch stain removal, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 tenants engaged a cleaner to undertake a full post tenancy clean of the premises and paid $440.00 for that service.

An exit inspection was carried out by the landlord on 22 August 2023 and an exit inspection report written. This report records remedial work that needed to be undertaken to bring the premises back to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The landlord did not have the tenants with it when the exit inspection was undertaken and did not provide a copy of the exit inspection report to the tenants.

After the exit inspection, the landlord sent an email to the tenants on 22 August 2023 outlining what remedial work needed to be undertaken and an estimate of the cost. Cleaning stains off the couch and bar stools was not mentioned in this email. Apart from the omission of these stains, all the other required remedial works listed were the same as what was recorded on the exit inspection report. The landlord accepted at the hearing that this was an oversight on her part. The tenants accepted responsibility for everything in the email list and have reimbursed the landlord for the costs incurred in remedying these. They did not accept responsibility for compensating the landlord for the wet clean of a stain on the couch that was not on the post exit inspection email list provided to them.

By agreement, the tenants did not hand back the keys until 25 August 2023 and argued that had they been made aware on 22 August 2023 of the need to remove a stain from the couch, they would have undertaken that work themselves or engaged a contractor to do so. Instead, the first they knew of the stains on the couch and bar stools being an issue was in an email they received from the landlord on 31 August 2023. The only received the invoice for $207.00 wet clean of the couch stain on 1 September 2023 and have refuted being responsible for this cost, as they were not made aware of these stains in the email list they received post inspection and did not consider the pictures of the stains to constitute anything more than fair wear and tear.

The landlord has proven that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy but have not proven the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants have proven they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage to the couch that is more than fair wear and tear.

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. The evidence provided by the parties does not met the required threshold for the stain on the couch or bar stools to be deemed intentional or careless.

Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with their cross application, I must reimburse the filing fee

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4699709 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Bond	$2,320.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $0.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the respondents immediately.
Investment Portfolio Management Limited Partnership As Agent For 820 - Investment Amateurs Ltd C/O Duval Portfolio Management must pay the tenants $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord claimed compensation of $207.00 for a wet clean to further remove a stain on the couch cushion following the end of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants applied to have their full bond refunded, without deduction for the couch stain removal, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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 tenants engaged a cleaner to undertake a full post tenancy clean of the premises and paid $440.00 for that service.
An exit inspection was carried out by the landlord on 22 August 2023 and an exit inspection report written. This report records remedial work that needed to be undertaken to bring the premises back to a reasonably clean and tidy standard. The landlord did not have the tenants with it when the exit inspection was undertaken and did not provide a copy of the exit inspection report to the tenants.
After the exit inspection, the landlord sent an email to the tenants on 22 August 2023 outlining what remedial work needed to be undertaken and an estimate of the cost. Cleaning stains off the couch and bar stools was not mentioned in this email. Apart from the omission of these stains, all the other required remedial works listed were the same as what was recorded on the exit inspection report. The landlord accepted at the hearing that this was an oversight on her part. The tenants accepted responsibility for everything in the email list and have reimbursed the landlord for the costs incurred in remedying these. They did not accept responsibility for compensating the landlord for the wet clean of a stain on the couch that was not on the post exit inspection email list provided to them.
By agreement, the tenants did not hand back the keys until 25 August 2023 and argued that had they been made aware on 22 August 2023 of the need to remove a stain from the couch, they would have undertaken that work themselves or engaged a contractor to do so. Instead, the first they knew of the stains on the couch and bar stools being an issue was in an email they received from the landlord on 31 August 2023. The only received the invoice for $207.00 wet clean of the couch stain on 1 September 2023 and have refuted being responsible for this cost, as they were not made aware of these stains in the email list they received post inspection and did not consider the pictures of the stains to constitute anything more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord has proven that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy but have not proven the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants have proven they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage to the couch that is more than fair wear and tear.
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. The evidence provided by the parties does not met the required threshold for the stain on the couch or bar stools to be deemed intentional or careless.
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with their cross application, I must reimburse the filing fee

Tenancy Tribunal case 4699709 — Tenancy dispute at 30 Koro Lane, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4699709 — Tenancy dispute at 30 Koro Lane, Mangere Bridge, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions