What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4700369 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4700369?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Wall: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700369?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9999432-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4700369 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4700369?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant; Wall: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4700369?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4700369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9999432-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

101 Portland Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4700369 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4700369 — net $179.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Wall	$200.00		Repairs: Wall
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$200.00	$20.44
Net award	$179.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$179.56

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Rosalyn Christine Winters: $179.56 [The tenant/s]: $3,260.44
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by counsel. Background
This tenancy began on 9 February 2019. It ended on 19 August 2023 after the tenant gave 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy.
In December 2022 the parties participated in mediation and an order was made recording the agreement reached. The order records 1 that the application 2 was made to address the issue of a 90-day notice, landlord notice when visiting or working on the property, and privacy concerns (resulting from garden/tree(s) maintenance work). The order recorded 3 that the 90-day notice to end the tenancy issued on 2 November 2022 was withdrawn by the landlord.
The order further recorded 4 , Both parties agree that in the event that Lena Tan has not vacated the tenancy by 7 June 2023 (28 days’ notice required), that Roslynd Christine Winters may issue a 90- day notice so that extensive repair work can be carried out. It was also discussed that such work is required to comply with section 51(2)(f) of the RTA.
The landlord served the tenant with a notice to terminate on 25 May 2023. The tenant applied 5 to the Tribunal to set aside that notice due to the agreement reached at mediation and the mediator’s order.
On 18 July 2023 the Tribunal made an order setting aside that notice to terminate.
On 11 July 2023 the landlord had applied 6 to the Tribunal and that application included a claim in respect of damage to the berm fronting the property. That application was adjourned on 18 July 2023 and a new hearing date was allocated for 31 August 2023. The landlord sought to withdraw her application on 22 August 2023 so that hearing did not take place. Tenant’s application
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord had a claim to the bond money but had not filed an application with the Tribunal setting out her claim.
Section 22B of the Act states that, If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim. 1 At paragraph 1 2 3 At paragraph 6 4 At paragraph 7 5 6
As the landlord has not made an application the Tribunal does not have the necessary evidence to deal with the landlord’s caim.
The exception to this is in relation to the tenant’s request to attach wall supports to furniture. The parties eventually agreed for the tenant to attach the furniture and make holes in the wall to do so.
The landlord produced a letter dated 30 January 2021 signed by the tenant in which she agreed to redecorate the wall that the L brackets had been attached to and that included painting and filling any holes that had been made.
While the parties may not have been aware of the legislation, this issue is dealt with in section 42B of the Act which concerns minor changes. Subsection 4 states that if a minor change is agreed to then the tenant must, on or before the expiry of the tenancy, return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor change was made.
I did not have the benefit of photographs of the wall before commencement of the tenancy and therefore there was no evidence of the condition of the wall before the minor change. At the hearing the landlord said that there were 11 holes in the wall that needed to be filled and sanded before painting.
The tenant’s evidence was that the wall supports made four holes in the wall. That means that it is possible that there were at least 7 pre-existing holes in the wall not associated with the minor change.
At the hearing the tenant acknowledged that while she purchased the materials to carry out the repairs she ran out of time. This together with the letter referred to above suggests that the tenant accepts liability for the holes that were made and that is the conclusion that I have reached. However, the tenant did not agree with the amount sought to repair the holes. I consider that the tenant should not be responsible for repairs where there is no evidence that she caused the damage.
The tenant should be liable for a contribution of the cost to repair the wall and in the circumstances, I consider that $200.00 is reasonable. That amount is awarded to the landlord. The remaining bond money is released to the tenant.
Much of the tenant’s remaining claim relies on the landlord giving notice to end the tenancy after the Tribunal order dated 18 July 2023. At the hearing the tenant did not produce the notice and the landlord denies that she gave notice. I also note that there is no reference to such a notice in any of the communication between the parties, in the tenant’s application or any other document before the Tribunal.
While the tenant claims that the landlord gave notice to end the tenancy this is not supported by the evidence. There is evidence that on 19 August 2023 by email the tenant gave 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy. The notice said that the last day of the tenancy would be 17 September 2023 (the tenancy ended on 19 September 2023).
As it is the tenant who gave notice, I consider that the landlord is not responsible for any of the costs associated with the tenant moving from the tenancy. Those claims are dismissed.
The tenant claimed in relation to the landlord failing to maintain the grounds for two years. The evidence produced does not support this and instead any suspension in the landlord maintaining the lawns appears to be due to a misunderstanding or miscommunication. The tenant’s claim is not supported by the evidence and is dismissed.
The tenant claimed for loss of enjoyment in relation to the landlord carrying out maintenance on the trees at the property. This claim was part of the application 7 considered at mediation and has therefore been dealt with.
Many of the tenant’s remaining claims are either beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal (failure to employ a Property Manager), not at issue between the parties (sump pump and blinds and curtains), had been addressed by the landlord (pest control for rodents) or already dealt with by the Tribunal (grass verge).
While there is clear evidence that the relationship between the parties has been fraught, I do not consider that any order is warranted in relation to the tenant’s claim in relation to stress suffered. The misrepresentation claimed by the tenant is in relation to the notices given by the landlord and those have been dealt with by either being withdrawn by the landlord or set aside by the Tribunal.
All remaining claims are dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4700369 — net $179.56 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Wall	$200.00		Repairs: Wall
Filing fee reimbursement		$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$200.00	$20.44
Net award	$179.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$179.56

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Rosalyn Christine Winters: $179.56 [The tenant/s]: $3,260.44
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by counsel. Background
This tenancy began on 9 February 2019. It ended on 19 August 2023 after the tenant gave 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy.
In December 2022 the parties participated in mediation and an order was made recording the agreement reached. The order records 1 that the application 2 was made to address the issue of a 90-day notice, landlord notice when visiting or working on the property, and privacy concerns (resulting from garden/tree(s) maintenance work). The order recorded 3 that the 90-day notice to end the tenancy issued on 2 November 2022 was withdrawn by the landlord.
The order further recorded 4 , Both parties agree that in the event that Lena Tan has not vacated the tenancy by 7 June 2023 (28 days’ notice required), that Roslynd Christine Winters may issue a 90- day notice so that extensive repair work can be carried out. It was also discussed that such work is required to comply with section 51(2)(f) of the RTA.
The landlord served the tenant with a notice to terminate on 25 May 2023. The tenant applied 5 to the Tribunal to set aside that notice due to the agreement reached at mediation and the mediator’s order.
On 18 July 2023 the Tribunal made an order setting aside that notice to terminate.
On 11 July 2023 the landlord had applied 6 to the Tribunal and that application included a claim in respect of damage to the berm fronting the property. That application was adjourned on 18 July 2023 and a new hearing date was allocated for 31 August 2023. The landlord sought to withdraw her application on 22 August 2023 so that hearing did not take place. Tenant’s application
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, compensation and exemplary damages.
The landlord had a claim to the bond money but had not filed an application with the Tribunal setting out her claim.
Section 22B of the Act states that, If the tenant applies to the Tribunal and the landlord seeks payment of the bond in whole or in part, the landlord must file an application with the Tribunal that sets out the landlord’s counterclaim. 1 At paragraph 1 2 3 At paragraph 6 4 At paragraph 7 5 6
As the landlord has not made an application the Tribunal does not have the necessary evidence to deal with the landlord’s caim.
The exception to this is in relation to the tenant’s request to attach wall supports to furniture. The parties eventually agreed for the tenant to attach the furniture and make holes in the wall to do so.
The landlord produced a letter dated 30 January 2021 signed by the tenant in which she agreed to redecorate the wall that the L brackets had been attached to and that included painting and filling any holes that had been made.
While the parties may not have been aware of the legislation, this issue is dealt with in section 42B of the Act which concerns minor changes. Subsection 4 states that if a minor change is agreed to then the tenant must, on or before the expiry of the tenancy, return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor change was made.
I did not have the benefit of photographs of the wall before commencement of the tenancy and therefore there was no evidence of the condition of the wall before the minor change. At the hearing the landlord said that there were 11 holes in the wall that needed to be filled and sanded before painting.
The tenant’s evidence was that the wall supports made four holes in the wall. That means that it is possible that there were at least 7 pre-existing holes in the wall not associated with the minor change.
At the hearing the tenant acknowledged that while she purchased the materials to carry out the repairs she ran out of time. This together with the letter referred to above suggests that the tenant accepts liability for the holes that were made and that is the conclusion that I have reached. However, the tenant did not agree with the amount sought to repair the holes. I consider that the tenant should not be responsible for repairs where there is no evidence that she caused the damage.
The tenant should be liable for a contribution of the cost to repair the wall and in the circumstances, I consider that $200.00 is reasonable. That amount is awarded to the landlord. The remaining bond money is released to the tenant.
Much of the tenant’s remaining claim relies on the landlord giving notice to end the tenancy after the Tribunal order dated 18 July 2023. At the hearing the tenant did not produce the notice and the landlord denies that she gave notice. I also note that there is no reference to such a notice in any of the communication between the parties, in the tenant’s application or any other document before the Tribunal.
While the tenant claims that the landlord gave notice to end the tenancy this is not supported by the evidence. There is evidence that on 19 August 2023 by email the tenant gave 28 days’ notice to end the tenancy. The notice said that the last day of the tenancy would be 17 September 2023 (the tenancy ended on 19 September 2023).
As it is the tenant who gave notice, I consider that the landlord is not responsible for any of the costs associated with the tenant moving from the tenancy. Those claims are dismissed.
The tenant claimed in relation to the landlord failing to maintain the grounds for two years. The evidence produced does not support this and instead any suspension in the landlord maintaining the lawns appears to be due to a misunderstanding or miscommunication. The tenant’s claim is not supported by the evidence and is dismissed.
The tenant claimed for loss of enjoyment in relation to the landlord carrying out maintenance on the trees at the property. This claim was part of the application 7 considered at mediation and has therefore been dealt with.
Many of the tenant’s remaining claims are either beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal (failure to employ a Property Manager), not at issue between the parties (sump pump and blinds and curtains), had been addressed by the landlord (pest control for rodents) or already dealt with by the Tribunal (grass verge).
While there is clear evidence that the relationship between the parties has been fraught, I do not consider that any order is warranted in relation to the tenant’s claim in relation to stress suffered. The misrepresentation claimed by the tenant is in relation to the notices given by the landlord and those have been dealt with by either being withdrawn by the landlord or set aside by the Tribunal.
All remaining claims are dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the tenant’s name as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700369 — Property damage at 101 Portland Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4700369 — Property damage at 101 Portland Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions