What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4832739?

The tribunal order states: Raghavender Thota and Inisha Thota to pay Buy West Realty Limited $885.09

How much money was awarded in case 4832739?

Blind Weights: $20.93 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Strainer: $12.43 awarded to landlord; Oven Buttons: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rangehood Filter: $17.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $764.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4832739?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4832739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10426004-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4832739?

The tribunal order states: Raghavender Thota and Inisha Thota to pay Buy West Realty Limited $885.09

How much money was awarded in case 4832739?

Blind Weights: $20.93 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Strainer: $12.43 awarded to landlord; Oven Buttons: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Rangehood Filter: $17.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $764.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4832739?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4832739?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10426004-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

53 West Coast Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4832739 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4832739 — net $885.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 January 2024	$764.29	Rent arrears to 31 January 2024
kitchen strainer	$12.43	kitchen strainer
rangehood filter	$17.00	rangehood filter
oven buttons	$50.00	oven buttons
blind weights	$20.93	blind weights
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$885.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$885.09

Order

Raghavender Thota and Inisha Thota to pay Buy West Realty Limited $885.09 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $885.09 (6134911-007) to Buy West Realty Limited immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,914.91 (6134911-007) to Raghavender Thota and Inisha Thota immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by telephone and the tenant attended by video.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 31 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records which proves the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant agreed that this amount was owed. Bathroom floor and vanity
The landlord seeks an insurance excess of $1,400.00 for replacement of the bathroom floor and an insurance excess of $550.00 for replacement of the bathroom vanity.
The bathroom floor was damaged in 2022. The tenant says that the landlord carried out repairs in February 2022 and the tenant was without a shower for a period of 10 to 12 weeks.
The landlord produced a letter dated 24 February 2022 from the contractors advising that the insurance company had instructed them to attend to the repairs and for the insurance excess of $1,400.00 to be paid prior to commencement of the work.
The landlord says that the floor was damaged due to an excess of water from the shower and that the tenant is responsible for this damage.
The tenant denies that he is responsible for this damage. He says that it was a maintenance issue that he advised the landlord of. Eight months later the landlord contacted the tenant advising that a professional had provided a report stating that it was not a structural issue.
The landlord produced a letter dated 18 October 2022 from a consulting engineer. That letter states that he has inspected the water damage to the bathroom floor and the water damage was largely concentrated on the flooring timber only, hence not structural. The tenant states that no professional entered the premises during the tenancy that he was aware of to inspect the damage in the bathroom.
Between October 2022 and January 2024, the tenant did not hear any further from the landlord in relation to this issue. He had asked the landlord for details around when the professional attended the property but received no response. At the time the tenant says he worked from home so would have been present had a professional visited.
The landlord produced a photograph showing the floor joists after removal of the flooring and the rear side of the floorboard which shows water damage.
The issue is whether the tenant is responsible for this water damage. The flooring is in the bathroom next to the shower. The shower looks original to the age of the premises (1980s) so would be around 40 years old. The shower door is a bifold door which the tenant says had a gap in the middle where water would escape on to the floor. The floorboard is a type of chip board which is not waterproof. On top of the floorboard was lino but it is not clear whether this has always been there.
There is no evidence of the condition of the floor when the tenancy began. The damage to the floor could have been gradual including during the time when the tenant did not live there.
Water is a feature of bathrooms. A tenant cannot be responsible for water damage in a bathroom due to ordinary daily activities. No evidence was produced to establish that the tenant was responsible for the damage. The claim in relation to the bathroom floor is dismissed.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant employed professional cleaners. After cleaning the vanity drawers in the ensuite, the cleaners could not put the drawers back in as they were swollen from water damage. The landlord says that the tenant is responsible for the water damage. The landlord referred to a photograph from the routine inspection (12 June 2023) where there is a splash of water on the front of the vanity. There is no other mention in either the June or October 2023 routine inspection reports in relation to damage to the ensuite vanity.
The landlord claimed insurance for the damaged vanity and the insurance claim was accepted.
The vanity was damaged due to water and yet as stated above water is a feature in bathrooms. It is not clear that the tenant is responsible for this damage. The Property Manager refers to the tenant not wiping up water on the vanity although if failure to do so causes damage in a room where there is water then the vanity may not be fit for purpose.
After considering all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this damage. The landlord’s claim for the insurance excess in relation to the vanity damage is dismissed.
There were minor claims sought by the landlord including a kitchen strainer, rangehood filter, oven buttons and blind weights. These claims were accepted by the tenant and are ordered.
The tenant did not agree to the replacement of the vanity waste pop up because he disputed that he was responsible for the vanity needing to be repaired. As I agree with the tenant in relation to liability for the vanity, the claim for the waste pop up is not ordered and that part of the claim is dismissed.
Because Buy West Realty Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4832739 — net $885.09 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 January 2024	$764.29	Rent arrears to 31 January 2024
kitchen strainer	$12.43	kitchen strainer
rangehood filter	$17.00	rangehood filter
oven buttons	$50.00	oven buttons
blind weights	$20.93	blind weights
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$885.09
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$885.09

Order

Raghavender Thota and Inisha Thota to pay Buy West Realty Limited $885.09 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $885.09 (6134911-007) to Buy West Realty Limited immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,914.91 (6134911-007) to Raghavender Thota and Inisha Thota immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended by telephone and the tenant attended by video.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 31 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records which proves the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant agreed that this amount was owed. Bathroom floor and vanity
The landlord seeks an insurance excess of $1,400.00 for replacement of the bathroom floor and an insurance excess of $550.00 for replacement of the bathroom vanity.
The bathroom floor was damaged in 2022. The tenant says that the landlord carried out repairs in February 2022 and the tenant was without a shower for a period of 10 to 12 weeks.
The landlord produced a letter dated 24 February 2022 from the contractors advising that the insurance company had instructed them to attend to the repairs and for the insurance excess of $1,400.00 to be paid prior to commencement of the work.
The landlord says that the floor was damaged due to an excess of water from the shower and that the tenant is responsible for this damage.
The tenant denies that he is responsible for this damage. He says that it was a maintenance issue that he advised the landlord of. Eight months later the landlord contacted the tenant advising that a professional had provided a report stating that it was not a structural issue.
The landlord produced a letter dated 18 October 2022 from a consulting engineer. That letter states that he has inspected the water damage to the bathroom floor and the water damage was largely concentrated on the flooring timber only, hence not structural. The tenant states that no professional entered the premises during the tenancy that he was aware of to inspect the damage in the bathroom.
Between October 2022 and January 2024, the tenant did not hear any further from the landlord in relation to this issue. He had asked the landlord for details around when the professional attended the property but received no response. At the time the tenant says he worked from home so would have been present had a professional visited.
The landlord produced a photograph showing the floor joists after removal of the flooring and the rear side of the floorboard which shows water damage.
The issue is whether the tenant is responsible for this water damage. The flooring is in the bathroom next to the shower. The shower looks original to the age of the premises (1980s) so would be around 40 years old. The shower door is a bifold door which the tenant says had a gap in the middle where water would escape on to the floor. The floorboard is a type of chip board which is not waterproof. On top of the floorboard was lino but it is not clear whether this has always been there.
There is no evidence of the condition of the floor when the tenancy began. The damage to the floor could have been gradual including during the time when the tenant did not live there.
Water is a feature of bathrooms. A tenant cannot be responsible for water damage in a bathroom due to ordinary daily activities. No evidence was produced to establish that the tenant was responsible for the damage. The claim in relation to the bathroom floor is dismissed.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant employed professional cleaners. After cleaning the vanity drawers in the ensuite, the cleaners could not put the drawers back in as they were swollen from water damage. The landlord says that the tenant is responsible for the water damage. The landlord referred to a photograph from the routine inspection (12 June 2023) where there is a splash of water on the front of the vanity. There is no other mention in either the June or October 2023 routine inspection reports in relation to damage to the ensuite vanity.
The landlord claimed insurance for the damaged vanity and the insurance claim was accepted.
The vanity was damaged due to water and yet as stated above water is a feature in bathrooms. It is not clear that the tenant is responsible for this damage. The Property Manager refers to the tenant not wiping up water on the vanity although if failure to do so causes damage in a room where there is water then the vanity may not be fit for purpose.
After considering all of the evidence I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this damage. The landlord’s claim for the insurance excess in relation to the vanity damage is dismissed.
There were minor claims sought by the landlord including a kitchen strainer, rangehood filter, oven buttons and blind weights. These claims were accepted by the tenant and are ordered.
The tenant did not agree to the replacement of the vanity waste pop up because he disputed that he was responsible for the vanity needing to be repaired. As I agree with the tenant in relation to liability for the vanity, the claim for the waste pop up is not ordered and that part of the claim is dismissed.
Because Buy West Realty Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4832739 — Rent arrears at 53 West Coast Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4832739 — Rent arrears at 53 West Coast Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions