What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4702151 about?

The tribunal order states: Te Rangi Maria Berryman Walters to pay [The landlord/s] $1,480.12 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4702151?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $510.63 awarded to landlord; Rent: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $320.28 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $173.34 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: TV booster cabl…: $252.55 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $22.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4702151?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4702151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9882810-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4702151 about?

The tribunal order states: Te Rangi Maria Berryman Walters to pay [The landlord/s] $1,480.12 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4702151?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $510.63 awarded to landlord; Rent: $180.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $320.28 awarded to landlord; Toilet Seat: $173.34 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: TV booster cabl…: $252.55 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $22.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4702151?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4702151?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9882810-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

16A Russell Road, Huntly, Huntly 3700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4702151 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4702151 — net $1,480.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent	$180.00	Rent
Repairs: toilet seat	$173.34	Repairs: toilet seat
Replace furnishings: TV booster cable	$252.55	Replace furnishings: TV booster cable
Various chattel replacements	$510.63	Various chattel replacements
Repairs: kitchen vinyl	$320.28	Repairs: kitchen vinyl
Water rates	$22.88	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,480.12
Bond	$1,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,480.12

[The landlord/s representative] attended the hearing today for the landlord. Ms Walters Berryman also attended.

This was a two-year tenancy which ended in August 2023 after the tenant gave notice.

The landlord seeks recovery of end-of-tenancy costs.

The below claims are proven and are not disputed by the tenant:- a. Rent was always on time. A small amount of rent and water rates are owed up to the final move-out day; b. The recently new toilet seat was accidentally broken again (the cost includes a contractor to replace); c. A TV booster cable was not used by the tenants but went missing. It is a listed chattel so had to be replaced as is needed for reception in the downstairs flat; d. Various everyday chattels needed replacing including two lightbulbs, two recycling bins (depreciated 50%), smoke alarm, a shower curtain (depreciated 50%), two carpet mats, heat pump filter; e. There were four or five small tears in the kitchen vinyl near where the fridge had been which may have been caused when moving out. This is careless damage under the law as it could have been prevented if more care was taken. I accept that replacing a strip of vinyl is reasonable as the damage affects not only appearance but also the ability to clean the vinyl and protect the floor beneath. I award the quote.

The landlord has not claimed for cleaning costs apart from time to clean the kitchen venetian blind (which did need cleaning). A helpful discussion was had about cleaning. A tenant is required to keep and return premises “reasonably clean and tidy”; see s40 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). A landlord cannot require a standard higher than this such as “able to be re-rented”. If a landlord wants to prepare premises for re-letting by cleaning it to a higher standard, then that is their choice and at their arrangement and cost.

I have changed one decision after the hearing. The landlord said that the washing machine door gasket was replaced during this tenancy due to wear and tear. The machine leaked on first use after this tenancy (for the next tenant) and the machine was repaired. The landlord supplied an invoice which says that the problem was with the door gasket clamp. The tenant said the machine was not leaking the last time she had used it and I accept this. On reflection, I am not satisfied that it has been proven that the leak was the result of careless use during this tenancy. I have not awarded this claim nor the claim for washing machine tokens.

Two other important issues were discussed:- a. The importance of smoke alarms always remaining in place. This is a legal requirement because smoke alarms save lives and protect property. A tenant may be fined up to a maximum of $4,000.00 by the Tribunal if a smoke alarm is interfered with; s40(3A)(b) RTA. The amount of the possible fine shows how serious this is. I have not fined the tenant on this occasion because she now understands that an alarm must never be removed. If there is a malfunction, or an alarm is being triggered due to its location, then a tenant should immediately notify the landlord and the issue be addressed urgently. In this case, the alarm removed was a secondary alarm located near the kitchen which the tenant said was sometimes triggered by cooking. The landlord pointed out that a “hush” button can be pushed if this happens. The main alarm located near the bedrooms remained in place. The landlord may like to check the secondary alarm’s operation and location with the current tenant and/or the fire service as there may be a better location for it. b. The relevance of “maximum number” of occupant limits. The tenancy agreement limits the maximum number of residents to two. A landlord has obligations to neighbours to manage noise (this flat has another flat above it) and, as the owner of the property, has a right to know who is living at the address. Additional long-term occupants can increase wear and tear on a property and increase the risk of property damage for both the landlord and for the tenant who is legally liable under the tenancy agreement. Again, a Tribunal is able to fine a tenant if the maximum occupancy is breached (up to $1,000.00 – s40(3A)(e) RTA). I have not done so on this occasion as the tenant explained the family circumstances that occurred, and the landlord remembers that there was some communication about this at the time.

I award the filing fee and suppress the landlord’s name (as applied for) as the claims have been awarded.

I have removed the guarantor’s name as the claims are covered by the bond.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4702151 — net $1,480.12 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent	$180.00	Rent
Repairs: toilet seat	$173.34	Repairs: toilet seat
Replace furnishings: TV booster cable	$252.55	Replace furnishings: TV booster cable
Various chattel replacements	$510.63	Various chattel replacements
Repairs: kitchen vinyl	$320.28	Repairs: kitchen vinyl
Water rates	$22.88	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,480.12
Bond	$1,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,480.12

Order

Te Rangi Maria Berryman Walters to pay [The landlord/s] $1,480.12 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,480.12 Te Rangi Maria Berryman Walters: $39.88

Reasons

[The landlord/s representative] attended the hearing today for the landlord. Ms Walters Berryman also attended.
This was a two-year tenancy which ended in August 2023 after the tenant gave notice.
The landlord seeks recovery of end-of-tenancy costs.
The below claims are proven and are not disputed by the tenant:- a. Rent was always on time. A small amount of rent and water rates are owed up to the final move-out day; b. The recently new toilet seat was accidentally broken again (the cost includes a contractor to replace); c. A TV booster cable was not used by the tenants but went missing. It is a listed chattel so had to be replaced as is needed for reception in the downstairs flat; d. Various everyday chattels needed replacing including two lightbulbs, two recycling bins (depreciated 50%), smoke alarm, a shower curtain (depreciated 50%), two carpet mats, heat pump filter; e. There were four or five small tears in the kitchen vinyl near where the fridge had been which may have been caused when moving out. This is careless damage under the law as it could have been prevented if more care was taken. I accept that replacing a strip of vinyl is reasonable as the damage affects not only appearance but also the ability to clean the vinyl and protect the floor beneath. I award the quote.
The landlord has not claimed for cleaning costs apart from time to clean the kitchen venetian blind (which did need cleaning). A helpful discussion was had about cleaning. A tenant is required to keep and return premises “reasonably clean and tidy”; see s40 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). A landlord cannot require a standard higher than this such as “able to be re-rented”. If a landlord wants to prepare premises for re-letting by cleaning it to a higher standard, then that is their choice and at their arrangement and cost.
I have changed one decision after the hearing. The landlord said that the washing machine door gasket was replaced during this tenancy due to wear and tear. The machine leaked on first use after this tenancy (for the next tenant) and the machine was repaired. The landlord supplied an invoice which says that the problem was with the door gasket clamp. The tenant said the machine was not leaking the last time she had used it and I accept this. On reflection, I am not satisfied that it has been proven that the leak was the result of careless use during this tenancy. I have not awarded this claim nor the claim for washing machine tokens.
Two other important issues were discussed:- a. The importance of smoke alarms always remaining in place. This is a legal requirement because smoke alarms save lives and protect property. A tenant may be fined up to a maximum of $4,000.00 by the Tribunal if a smoke alarm is interfered with; s40(3A)(b) RTA. The amount of the possible fine shows how serious this is. I have not fined the tenant on this occasion because she now understands that an alarm must never be removed. If there is a malfunction, or an alarm is being triggered due to its location, then a tenant should immediately notify the landlord and the issue be addressed urgently. In this case, the alarm removed was a secondary alarm located near the kitchen which the tenant said was sometimes triggered by cooking. The landlord pointed out that a “hush” button can be pushed if this happens. The main alarm located near the bedrooms remained in place. The landlord may like to check the secondary alarm’s operation and location with the current tenant and/or the fire service as there may be a better location for it. b. The relevance of “maximum number” of occupant limits. The tenancy agreement limits the maximum number of residents to two. A landlord has obligations to neighbours to manage noise (this flat has another flat above it) and, as the owner of the property, has a right to know who is living at the address. Additional long-term occupants can increase wear and tear on a property and increase the risk of property damage for both the landlord and for the tenant who is legally liable under the tenancy agreement. Again, a Tribunal is able to fine a tenant if the maximum occupancy is breached (up to $1,000.00 – s40(3A)(e) RTA). I have not done so on this occasion as the tenant explained the family circumstances that occurred, and the landlord remembers that there was some communication about this at the time.
I award the filing fee and suppress the landlord’s name (as applied for) as the claims have been awarded.
I have removed the guarantor’s name as the claims are covered by the bond.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4702151 — Property damage at 16A Russell Road, Huntly, Huntly 3700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4702151 — Property damage at 16A Russell Road, Huntly, Huntly 3700

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