What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4707650?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4707650?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4707650?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4707650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9751007-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4707650?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4707650?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4707650?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4707650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9751007-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 207 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4707650 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord Mr Orchard, has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Mr Orchard claimed that a toilet seat was damaged by the tenant and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.

The toilet seat in question is made from a composite woody material and coated with a black lacquer. Mr Orchard said it was new in 2019 when the premises was renovated.

In support of that claim, Mr Orchard said he contacted the importer who had given an opinion that the damage was caused by a build-up of urine, and a lack of cleaning.

Informal property inspections were conducted by the property manager, but nothing was ever noted about the toilet seat.

The tenant Ms Miller, stated that the showerhead (also new at the time of the renovation) broke off the shower in December 2022 and remained that way until the landlord fixed it 21 days later. During that time the shower leaked water onto the toilet seat. The toilet seat was therefore continuously wet for this time.

Ms Miller refuted Mr Orchard’s comment about “a lack of cleaning” saying that she employed a professional cleaner on a fortnightly basis at a cost of $96.60 per time.

Ms Miller provided two photos to the Tribunal that show the damage to the toilet seat. The damage shows the composite woody material having “exploded” and the lacquer having peeled off around some of these “exploded” areas. The photos indicate that the “exploding” has caused the lacquer to peel rather than vice versa.

It is common ground that the damage has been caused by moisture. Moisture is to be expected in a toilet/ bathroom such as is the room in question. The product that the toilet seat is manufactured from appears to be prone to failure from contact with moisture. It is my view that moisture coming in contact with a toilet seat does not meet the threshold of careless use. The damage is therefore the result of fair wear and tear.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord Mr Orchard, has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Mr Orchard claimed that a toilet seat was damaged by the tenant and the damage is more than fair wear and tear.

The toilet seat in question is made from a composite woody material and coated with a black lacquer. Mr Orchard said it was new in 2019 when the premises was renovated.

In support of that claim, Mr Orchard said he contacted the importer who had given an opinion that the damage was caused by a build-up of urine, and a lack of cleaning.

Informal property inspections were conducted by the property manager, but nothing was ever noted about the toilet seat.

Ms Miller refuted Mr Orchard’s comment about “a lack of cleaning” saying that she employed a professional cleaner on a fortnightly basis at a cost of $96.60 per time.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4707650 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 2, 207 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4707650 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat 2, 207 Ponsonby Road, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions