What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4838280 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4838280?

Door Swipe Cards: $49.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838280?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10604513-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4838280 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4838280?

Door Swipe Cards: $49.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838280?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838280?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10604513-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 26 Moa Road, Point Chevalier, Auckland 1022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4838280 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4838280. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Door swipe cards	$49.00		Door swipe cards
Fridge damage	$100.00		Fridge damage
Bond		$3,000.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $149.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,851.00
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The tenancy began on 1 July 2023 and ended on 2 February 2024.
The landlord applied for water rates and compensation for damage.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond.
Prior to the hearing the tenants paid the water rates owing. That claim has been withdrawn.
The landlord sought the cost of replacing two door swipes which was not opposed by the tenant. That amount is awarded.
The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning the tiles in the kitchen. The invoice produced by the landlord is for tile and grout deep clean of the kitchen, bathroom and ensuite.
The landlord provided no evidence in relation to the bathroom and ensuite needing cleaning. While photographs were taken of the tiles in the kitchen before and after the cleaning there were no dates available for when the photographs were taken. The landlord acknowledged that the cleaning was carried out when the new tenants had moved in and complained about the tiles.
I note that the cleaning invoice is dated 23 February 2024. The landlord did not have the date for when the cleaning was carried out, but it was likely to be between 16 and 23 February 2024. There is an email from the landlord to the tenant dated 16 February 2024 advising that the new tenants were not happy with the dirty state the tiles were left in.
The tenant says that the floor was professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy and that no issue was raised by the landlord about cleanliness until the new tenants complained.
The landlord produced an email from the cleaning company stating that in his view the tenants should have been cleaning the floors over time, so it never got to that level of dirtiness.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the tenant shall on the termination of the tenancy leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition.
The tenant produced photographs which show that the premises were left in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The tiles in the kitchen may have required a deep clean before new tenants moved in but that is not necessarily the responsibility of this tenant. There had been a previous six- month tenancy before this six-month tenancy commenced. The accumulation of twelve months of use is likely to have contributed to the need, if any, to deep clean the tiles.
On the evidence I am not satisfied that these tenants are responsible for the cost of cleaning the kitchen tiles which were only part of the invoice that was submitted. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the front door and walls in the premises. An invoice was produced for materials, paint and labour but there was no other detail provided.
The landlord did not provide any pre tenancy photographs and instead relied on the property inspection report contained in the tenancy agreement where he has not recorded any issues. He says that the tenant also did not identify any issues.
The photographs produced by the landlord were close and it is not clear which room the damage was located. I also determine that most of the damage was fair wear and tear which the tenant is not responsible for 1 .
The landlord claims that the tenant has damaged the front door which has scuff marks on it. The landlord did not provide a pre tenancy photograph of the front door, so I was unable to determine that these marks were caused by these tenants during this tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for painting is dismissed.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the fridge which was part of the chattels included in the tenancy.
The landlord claimed that there were six dents on the fridge. From the photographs produced I can see around 2 to 3 dents and a scratch.
The tenant acknowledged that the scratch was caused by her after removing a sticker and then trying to clean the residue left behind.
The landlord said that he sought advice about the effect the damage has had on the value of the fridge. He said that the damaged fridge will impact on the ability to re tenant the premises, but the tenant pointed out that the new tenant pays more rent than they did.
As the tenant acknowledged causing some of the damage, I consider that it is reasonable for the tenant to contribute for the damage caused. I note that the fridge has not been repaired and remains in the premises for the new tenants.
Taking this in to account I consider that a contribution of $100.00 is reasonable.
As both parties have had some success with their claims, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the names of both the tenant and landlord as sought.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4838280. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Door swipe cards	$49.00		Door swipe cards
Fridge damage	$100.00		Fridge damage
Bond		$3,000.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $149.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,851.00
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The tenancy began on 1 July 2023 and ended on 2 February 2024.
The landlord applied for water rates and compensation for damage.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond.
Prior to the hearing the tenants paid the water rates owing. That claim has been withdrawn.
The landlord sought the cost of replacing two door swipes which was not opposed by the tenant. That amount is awarded.
The landlord seeks compensation for cleaning the tiles in the kitchen. The invoice produced by the landlord is for tile and grout deep clean of the kitchen, bathroom and ensuite.
The landlord provided no evidence in relation to the bathroom and ensuite needing cleaning. While photographs were taken of the tiles in the kitchen before and after the cleaning there were no dates available for when the photographs were taken. The landlord acknowledged that the cleaning was carried out when the new tenants had moved in and complained about the tiles.
I note that the cleaning invoice is dated 23 February 2024. The landlord did not have the date for when the cleaning was carried out, but it was likely to be between 16 and 23 February 2024. There is an email from the landlord to the tenant dated 16 February 2024 advising that the new tenants were not happy with the dirty state the tiles were left in.
The tenant says that the floor was professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy and that no issue was raised by the landlord about cleanliness until the new tenants complained.
The landlord produced an email from the cleaning company stating that in his view the tenants should have been cleaning the floors over time, so it never got to that level of dirtiness.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the tenant shall on the termination of the tenancy leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition.
The tenant produced photographs which show that the premises were left in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The tiles in the kitchen may have required a deep clean before new tenants moved in but that is not necessarily the responsibility of this tenant. There had been a previous six- month tenancy before this six-month tenancy commenced. The accumulation of twelve months of use is likely to have contributed to the need, if any, to deep clean the tiles.
On the evidence I am not satisfied that these tenants are responsible for the cost of cleaning the kitchen tiles which were only part of the invoice that was submitted. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the front door and walls in the premises. An invoice was produced for materials, paint and labour but there was no other detail provided.
The landlord did not provide any pre tenancy photographs and instead relied on the property inspection report contained in the tenancy agreement where he has not recorded any issues. He says that the tenant also did not identify any issues.
The photographs produced by the landlord were close and it is not clear which room the damage was located. I also determine that most of the damage was fair wear and tear which the tenant is not responsible for 1 .
The landlord claims that the tenant has damaged the front door which has scuff marks on it. The landlord did not provide a pre tenancy photograph of the front door, so I was unable to determine that these marks were caused by these tenants during this tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for painting is dismissed.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the fridge which was part of the chattels included in the tenancy.
The landlord claimed that there were six dents on the fridge. From the photographs produced I can see around 2 to 3 dents and a scratch.
The tenant acknowledged that the scratch was caused by her after removing a sticker and then trying to clean the residue left behind.
The landlord said that he sought advice about the effect the damage has had on the value of the fridge. He said that the damaged fridge will impact on the ability to re tenant the premises, but the tenant pointed out that the new tenant pays more rent than they did.
As the tenant acknowledged causing some of the damage, I consider that it is reasonable for the tenant to contribute for the damage caused. I note that the fridge has not been repaired and remains in the premises for the new tenants.
Taking this in to account I consider that a contribution of $100.00 is reasonable.
As both parties have had some success with their claims, I make no award for reimbursement of the filing fee. For the same reason I suppress the names of both the tenant and landlord as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838280 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 26 Moa Road, Point Chevalier, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838280 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 26 Moa Road, Point Chevalier, Auckland 1022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions