What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4721990 about?

The tribunal order states: King-lok Kan and Sarah Tse must pay [The landlord/s] $582.67 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4721990?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtain Backing – Master Bed…: $562.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4721990?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4721990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9718101-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4721990 about?

The tribunal order states: King-lok Kan and Sarah Tse must pay [The landlord/s] $582.67 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4721990?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtain Backing – Master Bed…: $562.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4721990?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4721990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9718101-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4721990 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4721990 — net $582.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace curtain backing – master bedroom curtains	$562.23	Replace curtain backing – master bedroom curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$582.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$582.67

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for compensation for the repair of damage 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.

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. The owner’s insurance excess in this case is $500.00 for each claim.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent.

The damage claimed for in this case is careless damage.

The landlord’s claims are for the replacement of curtain backing on the master bedroom curtains damaged by mould; the repair of scratches to the bath and vanity; and for the repair of a shower fixture, a handle.

The tenants accept that the curtains backings were damaged. They said they offered to pay one half of the replacement cost.

The premises were newly built at the start of the tenancy. The landlord chose the most cost-effective option to repair the curtains, the replacement of the backings (the lining) only. Dry cleaning would have cost more, and the removal of the mould stains could not be guaranteed.

I find that the tenants are liable for the repair cost of the affected curtains.

The repairs to the bath and vanity ($100.00) and the repair/replacement of the shower handle ($69.00) are dismissed.

The tenants produced email evidence of the landlord’s acceptance that the scratches on the bath and vanity were considered fair wear and tear. It is the owners of the premises who have driven this application. They consider that the scratches are damage for which the tenants should be liable.

Newly build premises can present problems such as fixtures and fittings requiring minor repairs. The tenants gave evidence that they used the small vanity only as intended, to wash their hands. They mentioned possible causes of the minor scratches to the bath but were not sure how they happened.

The tenants were entitled to rely on the professional assessment of their property manager that the scratches were fair wear and tear in a tenancy that lasted almost 3 years. That the owners disagree with the assessment of their agent does not establish a claim against the tenants.

This minor repair work can best be seen as a matter of landlord maintenance/repair in a newly built property.

The bond has been paid to the tenants in full, which itself suggests that there were no issues at the end of the tenancy. But for the owners’ disagreement with the opinion of their agent, the property manager, this application would not have been made at all.

Apart from the claim for the damage to the curtains backings, I dismiss the remaining compensation claims.

The tenants will pay the landlord compensation of $562.23 for the repair of damage to the master bedroom curtains, as well as reimburse the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee of $20.44, a total of $582.67.

Both parties sought a name suppression order. I grant the landlord’s application for name suppression as the application is substantially successful. I decline the tenants’ application for name suppression as their defence has not been substantially successful – see section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4721990 — net $582.67 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace curtain backing – master bedroom curtains	$562.23	Replace curtain backing – master bedroom curtains
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$582.67
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$582.67

Order

King-lok Kan and Sarah Tse must pay [The landlord/s] $582.67 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The application for compensation for bath and vanity scratches and repairing a shower fixture is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The landlord’s representative] represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for compensation for the repair of damage 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.
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. The owner’s insurance excess in this case is $500.00 for each claim.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent.
The damage claimed for in this case is careless damage.
The landlord’s claims are for the replacement of curtain backing on the master bedroom curtains damaged by mould; the repair of scratches to the bath and vanity; and for the repair of a shower fixture, a handle.
The tenants accept that the curtains backings were damaged. They said they offered to pay one half of the replacement cost.
The premises were newly built at the start of the tenancy. The landlord chose the most cost-effective option to repair the curtains, the replacement of the backings (the lining) only. Dry cleaning would have cost more, and the removal of the mould stains could not be guaranteed.
I find that the tenants are liable for the repair cost of the affected curtains.
The repairs to the bath and vanity ($100.00) and the repair/replacement of the shower handle ($69.00) are dismissed.
The tenants produced email evidence of the landlord’s acceptance that the scratches on the bath and vanity were considered fair wear and tear. It is the owners of the premises who have driven this application. They consider that the scratches are damage for which the tenants should be liable.
Newly build premises can present problems such as fixtures and fittings requiring minor repairs. The tenants gave evidence that they used the small vanity only as intended, to wash their hands. They mentioned possible causes of the minor scratches to the bath but were not sure how they happened.
The tenants were entitled to rely on the professional assessment of their property manager that the scratches were fair wear and tear in a tenancy that lasted almost 3 years. That the owners disagree with the assessment of their agent does not establish a claim against the tenants.
This minor repair work can best be seen as a matter of landlord maintenance/repair in a newly built property.
The bond has been paid to the tenants in full, which itself suggests that there were no issues at the end of the tenancy. But for the owners’ disagreement with the opinion of their agent, the property manager, this application would not have been made at all.
Apart from the claim for the damage to the curtains backings, I dismiss the remaining compensation claims.
The tenants will pay the landlord compensation of $562.23 for the repair of damage to the master bedroom curtains, as well as reimburse the landlord’s Tribunal filing fee of $20.44, a total of $582.67.
Both parties sought a name suppression order. I grant the landlord’s application for name suppression as the application is substantially successful. I decline the tenants’ application for name suppression as their defence has not been substantially successful – see section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4721990 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4721990 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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