What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4839240 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4839240?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Reinstate Door Glass: $503.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839240?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839240?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10390808-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4839240 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4839240?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Reinstate Door Glass: $503.02 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839240?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839240?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10390808-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4839240 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4839240 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Reinstate door glass	$503.02	Reinstate door glass
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Ayrey represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for costs to reinstate the laundry door glass after removal of a cat flap installed by the tenant. The tenant installed the cat flap early on in the tenancy with the permission of the landlord. She agreed with the landlord to reinstate the door at the end of the tenancy.

In or about May 2023, the landlord installed double glazing in the premises (in response to concerns by the tenant of condensation and dampness). On the tenant’s request the cat flap was reinstalled into the double-glazed laundry door. However, the tenant claims that the property managers had received a price from the landlords to reinstate the door with double glazing at the end of the tenancy and they should have passed this information onto her. She claims that had she known the substantial additional cost to reinstate the door with double glazing, it may have affected her decision to have the cat flap reinstated. She therefore claims that she should only be liable for the cost to replace the door with single glazing.

I find the tenant liable for the cost claimed to replace the door glass. The tenant must have known that the cost to remediate the door with double glazed glass would be more expensive that if the glass was single glazed. There is no legal obligation on the landlord to provide her with this information. If she was concerned about the possible cost to reinstate the door at the end of the tenancy, she could have made her own investigations before asking for the cat flap to be reinstalled.

The landlord has been successful in their claim, and they are therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression

Both parties applied for a suppression order.

Section 95A(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply). Section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of that party be suppressed.

The landlords have been wholly successful in their claim and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlords’ name and identifying details be suppressed.

The tenant has been wholly unsuccessful in her defence. However, I consider that this is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion in her favour and therefore order suppression of her name and identifying details. The tenant does not dispute liability to reinstate the door, the dispute is simply over how much she is required to pay towards the reinstatement. Given the circumstances, in particular the relatively minor nature of the dispute, I do not consider there is any public interest in her name being published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4839240 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Reinstate door glass	$503.02	Reinstate door glass
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $503.02 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Ayrey represented the landlord.
The landlord has applied for costs to reinstate the laundry door glass after removal of a cat flap installed by the tenant. The tenant installed the cat flap early on in the tenancy with the permission of the landlord. She agreed with the landlord to reinstate the door at the end of the tenancy.
In or about May 2023, the landlord installed double glazing in the premises (in response to concerns by the tenant of condensation and dampness). On the tenant’s request the cat flap was reinstalled into the double-glazed laundry door. However, the tenant claims that the property managers had received a price from the landlords to reinstate the door with double glazing at the end of the tenancy and they should have passed this information onto her. She claims that had she known the substantial additional cost to reinstate the door with double glazing, it may have affected her decision to have the cat flap reinstated. She therefore claims that she should only be liable for the cost to replace the door with single glazing.
I find the tenant liable for the cost claimed to replace the door glass. The tenant must have known that the cost to remediate the door with double glazed glass would be more expensive that if the glass was single glazed. There is no legal obligation on the landlord to provide her with this information. If she was concerned about the possible cost to reinstate the door at the end of the tenancy, she could have made her own investigations before asking for the cat flap to be reinstalled.
The landlord has been successful in their claim, and they are therefore entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
Both parties applied for a suppression order.
Section 95A(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply). Section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of that party be suppressed.
The landlords have been wholly successful in their claim and the limited exceptions set out in s 95A do not apply. I therefore make an order that the landlords’ name and identifying details be suppressed.
The tenant has been wholly unsuccessful in her defence. However, I consider that this is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion in her favour and therefore order suppression of her name and identifying details. The tenant does not dispute liability to reinstate the door, the dispute is simply over how much she is required to pay towards the reinstatement. Given the circumstances, in particular the relatively minor nature of the dispute, I do not consider there is any public interest in her name being published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839240 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839240 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions