What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4855450 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $99.00 from the bond, being

How much money was awarded in case 4855450?

The reconciled net award was $99.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855450?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855450?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10559322-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4855450 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $99.00 from the bond, being

How much money was awarded in case 4855450?

The reconciled net award was $99.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855450?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855450?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10559322-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4855450 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.

The landlord has applied for compensation for repairs.

The tenant had applied for the return of her bond.

Prior mediation agreed the release of the bulk of the bond. A balance of $299.00 remained at the Bond Centre, to be distributed after this determination.

This tenancy commenced 29 April 2022 and lasted almost two years. It was a brand-new premises at commencement.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.

The following damage was noted at the end of the tenancy: a. Damage to the paint finishing in one part of the second bedroom wall. This occurred from devices cabling that run along the wall. Attempt to remove via cleaning failed. b. Two cupboards/wardrobes had some markings on the back wall, consistent with rubbing from unknown objects. These to failed to be removed by cleaning. c. The bathroom door base had bubbling paint, one section had flaked.

The landlord produced an invoice for $299.99. The work completed was:

Having considered the photos and submissions I consider the damaged wall is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I consider the other painting repairs have not been proven as correcting anything more than fair wear and tear.

I consider an apportionment of the invoiced cost of $99.00 as tenant contribution towards the wall damage repair is a reasonable sum, considering the effort and likely cost for the other repairs. Filing fee

I leave each party to carry their respective filing fee. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The landlord requested suppression in its application. The tenant requested suppression at the hearing. While neither party has been substantially successful, both have engaged in the mediation process prior to today and both had reasons to hold their position regarding the disputed amount. The split distribution of the bond reflects this.

Having considered the respective interests of the parties, and the public, I consider it appropriate to grant both parties suppression as sought. This is ordered.

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $99.00 from the bond, being compensation for repairs to the second bedroom wall.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $299.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $99.00 [The tenant/s]: $200.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation for repairs.
The tenant had applied for the return of her bond.
Prior mediation agreed the release of the bulk of the bond. A balance of $299.00 remained at the Bond Centre, to be distributed after this determination.
This tenancy commenced 29 April 2022 and lasted almost two years. It was a brand-new premises at commencement.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
The following damage was noted at the end of the tenancy: a. Damage to the paint finishing in one part of the second bedroom wall. This occurred from devices cabling that run along the wall. Attempt to remove via cleaning failed. b. Two cupboards/wardrobes had some markings on the back wall, consistent with rubbing from unknown objects. These to failed to be removed by cleaning. c. The bathroom door base had bubbling paint, one section had flaked.
The landlord produced an invoice for $299.99. The work completed was:
Having considered the photos and submissions I consider the damaged wall is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I consider the other painting repairs have not been proven as correcting anything more than fair wear and tear.
I consider an apportionment of the invoiced cost of $99.00 as tenant contribution towards the wall damage repair is a reasonable sum, considering the effort and likely cost for the other repairs. Filing fee
I leave each party to carry their respective filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. The tenant requested suppression at the hearing. While neither party has been substantially successful, both have engaged in the mediation process prior to today and both had reasons to hold their position regarding the disputed amount. The split distribution of the bond reflects this.
Having considered the respective interests of the parties, and the public, I consider it appropriate to grant both parties suppression as sought. This is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855450 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855450 — Cleanliness

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