What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4832557 about?

The tribunal order states: Lynley Marie Cullinane must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4832557?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4832557?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4832557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10322840-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4832557 about?

The tribunal order states: Lynley Marie Cullinane must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4832557?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4832557?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4832557?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10322840-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 58 Papanui Road, Merivale, Christchurch 8014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4832557 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4832557 — 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	$402.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

Lynley Marie Cullinane must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $402.50 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Cullinane attended with the consent of the Tribunal to represent Mrs Cullinane.
Each tenant made individual applications for the same claim (unnecessarily). One tenant attended and the other did not.
As both tenants were named respondents in the landlord’s application and only one application was necessary for both tenants’ claims for refund of the remaining bond, I have dealt with the tenants’ applications as one.
Although the property was tenanted through a management company throughout the tenancy, the management company was not involved in these proceedings.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the remaining bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have claimed for refund of the remaining bond and reimbursement of the filing fees.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The property was rented fully furnished. The furnishing included an oak extendable table and four matching chairs. The photographs are not especially clear but show that the table was in a corner of the living room with two of the chairs against walls and unusable in that position.
The landlord gave evidence that the management company completed an inspection prior to the tenancy commencing and did not highlight any issues in relation to the chairs.
At an inspection in January 2023, about seven weeks into the tenancy, the property management company noted that “The tenant has asked if he can please fix the dining room chairs, he will drill a small hole in the joins, screw a long screw through then cover with a dowling cover. The chairs very wobbly to sit on [sic]”. A close-up photograph of a chair was provided in the inspection report to show the gaps between parts of the chair. As noted above, two of the chairs would have been very difficult to inspect in any meaningful way, for the purposes of this matter, as they were still between the table and the wall.
The tenant gave evidence that he had been given permission to repair the chairs but had discovered, when looking at all four chairs, that rails were missing. He looked throughout the property for the missing parts, but they were not there. He was unable to fix the chairs without these missing parts and said he had advised the management company accordingly.
The landlord did not seem to have been made aware of this and thought the repairs had taken place.
The repairs had not taken place and the tenant gave evidence that he and his flatmate had avoided sitting on the chairs from then on.
However, in April 2023 a visitor had sat on one of the chairs and it had collapsed under her. The management company advised the owner of this, and the owner asked to collect all four chairs to inspect them. They did not accept that it would have collapsed under normal use.
The owner found that two of the chairs were repairable (these were repaired by the owner and returned) but two had missing pieces and the owner gave evidence that these pieces were “critical to the structural integrity of the chair”. The owner asked the management company to locate the pieces on more than one occasion but received no response.
The owner then obtained a quotation for the manufacture of the three new rails required and reassembly of the remaining two chairs and sent this to the management company with the instruction that they intended to claim this amount from the tenants in due course. The amount was $402.50, and this is the amount the landlord is claiming from the tenants’ bond.
No evidence was provided to show that this information had been passed to the tenant at that time. The tenants found out that the amount was being claimed when the management company told them that the owner had asked to hold this amount back from the bond refund.
Although I understand that the landlord is upset at the damage to the chairs and genuinely believes these tenants to be responsible for that damage, I do not consider that sufficient evidence has been provided to show that the chairs were damaged during this tenancy.
I find it unlikely that the management company would have sat on each chair at the pre-tenancy inspection so would not have been able to determine if they were wobbly or if the rails had been missing prior to the tenancy commencing. This would be particularly so if the chairs with the missing rails had initially been at the back of the table and not easily accessible or even visible.
These two chairs were unlikely to have been used by these tenants as the table was placed in a corner making them inaccessible and there were only two occupants.
The tenants complained of the wobbly chairs at the first inspection, which was close to the beginning of the tenancy, and the management company accepted that the chairs required repair with no suggestion to the tenants or the owner that the tenant was at fault in any way.
The property management company may have been able to provide additional information, as suggested by the tenant at the hearing, but they were not involved in these proceedings.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
I found the tenant’s evidence to be entirely plausible and I consider it more likely than not, on the evidence provided, that the chair rails were removed some time before this tenancy began.
The landlord accepted that these rails were, “critical to the structural integrity” of the chairs so it is not surprising that the chair gave way under the weight of a person using it in the usual way.
The landlord’s claim for $402.50 from the bond is dismissed. Suppression and filing fee
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that party’s name not be published.
The tenant applied for name suppression and has wholly or substantially succeeded so name suppression has been ordered for the tenant under section 95A of the Act.
As [The applicant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Although each tenant made their own individual application, that was not necessary, and one tenant did not attend so I only award reimbursement of one filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4832557 — 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	$402.50
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

Lynley Marie Cullinane must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $402.50 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Cullinane attended with the consent of the Tribunal to represent Mrs Cullinane.
Each tenant made individual applications for the same claim (unnecessarily). One tenant attended and the other did not.
As both tenants were named respondents in the landlord’s application and only one application was necessary for both tenants’ claims for refund of the remaining bond, I have dealt with the tenants’ applications as one.
Although the property was tenanted through a management company throughout the tenancy, the management company was not involved in these proceedings.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the remaining bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have claimed for refund of the remaining bond and reimbursement of the filing fees.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The property was rented fully furnished. The furnishing included an oak extendable table and four matching chairs. The photographs are not especially clear but show that the table was in a corner of the living room with two of the chairs against walls and unusable in that position.
The landlord gave evidence that the management company completed an inspection prior to the tenancy commencing and did not highlight any issues in relation to the chairs.
At an inspection in January 2023, about seven weeks into the tenancy, the property management company noted that “The tenant has asked if he can please fix the dining room chairs, he will drill a small hole in the joins, screw a long screw through then cover with a dowling cover. The chairs very wobbly to sit on [sic]”. A close-up photograph of a chair was provided in the inspection report to show the gaps between parts of the chair. As noted above, two of the chairs would have been very difficult to inspect in any meaningful way, for the purposes of this matter, as they were still between the table and the wall.
The tenant gave evidence that he had been given permission to repair the chairs but had discovered, when looking at all four chairs, that rails were missing. He looked throughout the property for the missing parts, but they were not there. He was unable to fix the chairs without these missing parts and said he had advised the management company accordingly.
The landlord did not seem to have been made aware of this and thought the repairs had taken place.
The repairs had not taken place and the tenant gave evidence that he and his flatmate had avoided sitting on the chairs from then on.
However, in April 2023 a visitor had sat on one of the chairs and it had collapsed under her. The management company advised the owner of this, and the owner asked to collect all four chairs to inspect them. They did not accept that it would have collapsed under normal use.
The owner found that two of the chairs were repairable (these were repaired by the owner and returned) but two had missing pieces and the owner gave evidence that these pieces were “critical to the structural integrity of the chair”. The owner asked the management company to locate the pieces on more than one occasion but received no response.
The owner then obtained a quotation for the manufacture of the three new rails required and reassembly of the remaining two chairs and sent this to the management company with the instruction that they intended to claim this amount from the tenants in due course. The amount was $402.50, and this is the amount the landlord is claiming from the tenants’ bond.
No evidence was provided to show that this information had been passed to the tenant at that time. The tenants found out that the amount was being claimed when the management company told them that the owner had asked to hold this amount back from the bond refund.
Although I understand that the landlord is upset at the damage to the chairs and genuinely believes these tenants to be responsible for that damage, I do not consider that sufficient evidence has been provided to show that the chairs were damaged during this tenancy.
I find it unlikely that the management company would have sat on each chair at the pre-tenancy inspection so would not have been able to determine if they were wobbly or if the rails had been missing prior to the tenancy commencing. This would be particularly so if the chairs with the missing rails had initially been at the back of the table and not easily accessible or even visible.
These two chairs were unlikely to have been used by these tenants as the table was placed in a corner making them inaccessible and there were only two occupants.
The tenants complained of the wobbly chairs at the first inspection, which was close to the beginning of the tenancy, and the management company accepted that the chairs required repair with no suggestion to the tenants or the owner that the tenant was at fault in any way.
The property management company may have been able to provide additional information, as suggested by the tenant at the hearing, but they were not involved in these proceedings.
The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
I found the tenant’s evidence to be entirely plausible and I consider it more likely than not, on the evidence provided, that the chair rails were removed some time before this tenancy began.
The landlord accepted that these rails were, “critical to the structural integrity” of the chairs so it is not surprising that the chair gave way under the weight of a person using it in the usual way.
The landlord’s claim for $402.50 from the bond is dismissed. Suppression and filing fee
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that party’s name not be published.
The tenant applied for name suppression and has wholly or substantially succeeded so name suppression has been ordered for the tenant under section 95A of the Act.
As [The applicant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Although each tenant made their own individual application, that was not necessary, and one tenant did not attend so I only award reimbursement of one filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4832557 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 5, 58 Papanui Road, Merivale, Christchurch 8014

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4832557 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 5, 58 Papanui Road, Merivale, Christchurch 8014

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

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions