What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4855600 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4855600?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $41.04 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $288.00 awarded to landlord; Reinstalling Shelving: $281.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $234.21 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855600?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855600?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11003344-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4855600 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4855600?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $41.04 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $288.00 awarded to landlord; Reinstalling Shelving: $281.25 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $234.21 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4855600?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855600?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11003344-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4855600 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4855600. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$234.21	Water rates
Dishwasher damage	$41.04	Dishwasher damage
Reinstalling shelving	$281.25	Reinstalling shelving
Repairing fence dog damaged	$288.00	Repairing fence dog damaged
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenant] must pay [the landlords] $864.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlords’ claim is allowed as set out in this order and these

Reasons

. All other claims are dismissed. DescriptionLandlord Water rates$234.21 Dishwasher damage$41.04 Reinstalling shelving$281.25 Repairing fence dog damaged$288.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$864.94 Reasons:

All parties attended the hearing on 23 October 2024.
The landlords have applied for water arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water?

The tenancy ended on 20 March 2024. The landlords provided water records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant does not dispute this recalculated amount now that the landlord has deducted the fixed charges.
An order for $234.21 is made as sought.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all their goods from the premises. 1
The landlords claim that the tenant left some of her goods behind including children’s bicycles and a sofa. They produced a photograph of the items taken soon after the new tenancy began.
The tenant says the bicycles were a neighbour’s and the other items probably belonged to the new tenant.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the items in the photographs belong to the tenant.
Therefore, the claim is not proved, and it is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlords claim the tenant damaged a dishwasher, the oven, the carpet, a light cover, a fence, and the walls and ceilings.
To succeed in their claim, the landlords 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. 2 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e)(ii). 2 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 3
The dishwasher’s lower rotor arm was broken. The tenant’s children probably dropped a heavy ceramic dish on it when they were trying to empty the dishwasher. The dishwasher was old and due for replacement, but it had some life left in it. The landlords replaced the dishwasher which was sensible in the circumstances. It might have cost $41.04 (the cost of a new arm) to repair. It is appropriate to make an order in that amount.
The tenant denies she damaged the oven. The landlords say the oven did not work after the tenancy ended. This is a “he says, she says” situation. There is no evidence from an independent person such as an electrical contractor. The landlords bear the onus of proof. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the oven was damaged during the tenancy. The oven was also more than 10 years old and was due for replacement in any event.
The tenant spilled some coffee on the carpet which could not be cleaned out. Upstairs, she may have damaged some of the carpet by spilling nail polish or the like on the carpet. The landlords claimed the carpet also had a “dog” odour. The tenant says the family’s dog, a Husky, seldom came inside. I am not satisfied that the odour was due to the dog. It was more likely due to the carpets being recently professionally cleaned by the tenant’s contractor. I make no order for the landlords replacing the carpet. Although, the carpet was stained during the tenancy. The staining was minor and isolated. Those stains did not necessitate replacing all the carpet. Moreover, the carpet was at least 12 years old and therefore likely fully depreciated. The landlords should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. I make no order for compensation because the carpet was due for replacement anyway.
The tenant removed some wardrobe shelving and did not replace it at the end of the tenancy. The landlords purchased four new vinyl covered wire shelves rather than try to reinstall the original shelves. The tenant should have reinstalled the shelves herself rather than leaving it to the landlords to fix. The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the landlords for the cost of the shelves.
The landlords have not proven the tenant damaged or removed the light fitting cover. They had not proved the light cover was not missing at the beginning of the tenancy. 3 RTA, s 49B(1).
The tenant denied that the damage in the converted garage area occurred during the tenancy. The landlords could not produce cogent evidence that the converted garage space’s walls and ceilings were undamaged prior to the tenancy beginning. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage complained of occurred during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.
The tenant’s Husky damaged some fencing by excitedly jumping up when the tenant’s family arrived home. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and I am not satisfied the damage was not caused carelessly. The tenant could have taken prudent steps to protect the fence or restrain her dog, so the damage did not happen. The landlords produced an invoice for the cost of repairing the fence. An order is made accordingly.
The amounts ordered are proved. The other claims for compensation for damage are dismissed. Filing fee
The tenant must reimburse the landlords for the filing fee. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication.
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.
Both parties have been substantially successful in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal grants non-publication.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4855600. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$234.21	Water rates
Dishwasher damage	$41.04	Dishwasher damage
Reinstalling shelving	$281.25	Reinstalling shelving
Repairing fence dog damaged	$288.00	Repairing fence dog damaged
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenant] must pay [the landlords] $864.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlords’ claim is allowed as set out in this order and these

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing on 23 October 2024.
The landlords have applied for water arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water?

The tenancy ended on 20 March 2024. The landlords provided water records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant does not dispute this recalculated amount now that the landlord has deducted the fixed charges.
An order for $234.21 is made as sought.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all their goods from the premises. 1
The landlords claim that the tenant left some of her goods behind including children’s bicycles and a sofa. They produced a photograph of the items taken soon after the new tenancy began.
The tenant says the bicycles were a neighbour’s and the other items probably belonged to the new tenant.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the items in the photographs belong to the tenant.
Therefore, the claim is not proved, and it is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlords claim the tenant damaged a dishwasher, the oven, the carpet, a light cover, a fence, and the walls and ceilings.
To succeed in their claim, the landlords 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. 2 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e)(ii). 2 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 3
The dishwasher’s lower rotor arm was broken. The tenant’s children probably dropped a heavy ceramic dish on it when they were trying to empty the dishwasher. The dishwasher was old and due for replacement, but it had some life left in it. The landlords replaced the dishwasher which was sensible in the circumstances. It might have cost $41.04 (the cost of a new arm) to repair. It is appropriate to make an order in that amount.
The tenant denies she damaged the oven. The landlords say the oven did not work after the tenancy ended. This is a “he says, she says” situation. There is no evidence from an independent person such as an electrical contractor. The landlords bear the onus of proof. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the oven was damaged during the tenancy. The oven was also more than 10 years old and was due for replacement in any event.
The tenant spilled some coffee on the carpet which could not be cleaned out. Upstairs, she may have damaged some of the carpet by spilling nail polish or the like on the carpet. The landlords claimed the carpet also had a “dog” odour. The tenant says the family’s dog, a Husky, seldom came inside. I am not satisfied that the odour was due to the dog. It was more likely due to the carpets being recently professionally cleaned by the tenant’s contractor. I make no order for the landlords replacing the carpet. Although, the carpet was stained during the tenancy. The staining was minor and isolated. Those stains did not necessitate replacing all the carpet. Moreover, the carpet was at least 12 years old and therefore likely fully depreciated. The landlords should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. I make no order for compensation because the carpet was due for replacement anyway.
The tenant removed some wardrobe shelving and did not replace it at the end of the tenancy. The landlords purchased four new vinyl covered wire shelves rather than try to reinstall the original shelves. The tenant should have reinstalled the shelves herself rather than leaving it to the landlords to fix. The Tribunal orders the tenant to reimburse the landlords for the cost of the shelves.
The landlords have not proven the tenant damaged or removed the light fitting cover. They had not proved the light cover was not missing at the beginning of the tenancy. 3 RTA, s 49B(1).
The tenant denied that the damage in the converted garage area occurred during the tenancy. The landlords could not produce cogent evidence that the converted garage space’s walls and ceilings were undamaged prior to the tenancy beginning. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage complained of occurred during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed.
The tenant’s Husky damaged some fencing by excitedly jumping up when the tenant’s family arrived home. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and I am not satisfied the damage was not caused carelessly. The tenant could have taken prudent steps to protect the fence or restrain her dog, so the damage did not happen. The landlords produced an invoice for the cost of repairing the fence. An order is made accordingly.
The amounts ordered are proved. The other claims for compensation for damage are dismissed. Filing fee
The tenant must reimburse the landlords for the filing fee. Non-publication
The parties seek non-publication.
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.
Both parties have been substantially successful in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal grants non-publication.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855600 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855600 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions