What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4872190 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4872190?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4872190?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4872190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10575277-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4872190 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4872190?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4872190?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4872190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10575277-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4872190 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4872190 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4872190 — net $570.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and carpet stain removal	$250.00	Cleaning: and carpet stain removal
Repair chips and paint	$300.00	Repair chips and paint
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$570.44
Bond	$2,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$570.44

Claims and awards for application 4872190 — net $570.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning: and carpet stain removal

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: and carpet stain removal

Repair chips and paint

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair chips and paint

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $570.44

Bond

Landlord $2,960.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $570.44

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Team Group Rentals Limited: $570.44 [The tenant/s]: $2,389.56
[The tenant/s] is to pay Team Group Rentals Limited $570.44 from the bond. The amount to pay is calculated as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There were some parts of the premises that were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. Showers, some cupboards, the oven and stove top were areas that needed more cleaning to reach the standard of reasonably clean. There was a small stain on the carpet. It is clear that the cleaning carried out by the landlord at the end of the tenancy was to make the premises perfectly clean. From the photos I have assessed that for the cleaning to the standard of reasonably clean and the small carpet stain removal, $250.00 should be paid.

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.
The landlord has claimed the cost of repairs to a powder coated exterior door handle which has been chipped. The door handle was not protected from damage by a door restrainer. It would have been damaged by coming into in contact with a ‘sharp’ aluminium hinge. It damage was foreseeable as a possibility by the landlord and steps could have been taken to limit the door opening to avoid damage. Because the landlord chose not to restrain the door and protect it from damage, the damage is wear and tear. The loss is not recoverable from the tenant.
The landlord has claimed the cost of replacing bathroom mirrors where the silver has peeled from the back of the mirrors. It is most likely that has happened due to condensation. The landlord alleges that the tenants did not use the fan and open the window sufficiently and this caused the damage. However it is known that even where a fan and window are open during showering, condensation can form on mirrors and walls and not dry immediately. The tenants said there were no issues with mould in the bathroom. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the reason the backing failed in the bottom edge of the mirrors was due to a careless way that the tenants had used the fan and window when showering.
The landlord has claimed $1,720.00 for filling some nail holes repainting a lounge wall and repairing a small patch in a bathroom wall and repainting it and repairing a chip in the wall of a staircase and repainting. It is clear that a small amount of filling would be needed before painting. That filler would need sealing but only in the filled areas. I have assessed that cost as $300.00. The painting of the repaired areas took place when the whole interior was repainted. It was repainted before being advertised for sale. The repainting of all the interior was necessary because it was 13 years since the interior had been painted and the property was to be sold.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord 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. The cost of repairing the damage is reasonable because the landlord would not have had that cost, even if repainting was necessary after 13 years. The amount ordered is to repair damage that barely exceeds fair wear and tear. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. Name Suppression
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore the landlord’s request for name suppression is not granted. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The tenants had substantially succeeded defending the claim and so name suppression is granted.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4872190 — net $570.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and carpet stain removal	$250.00	Cleaning: and carpet stain removal
Repair chips and paint	$300.00	Repair chips and paint
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$570.44
Bond	$2,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$570.44

Claims and awards for application 4872190 — net $570.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning: and carpet stain removal

Amount: $250.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: and carpet stain removal

Repair chips and paint

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repair chips and paint

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $570.44

Bond

Landlord $2,960.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $570.44

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Team Group Rentals Limited: $570.44 [The tenant/s]: $2,389.56
[The tenant/s] is to pay Team Group Rentals Limited $570.44 from the bond. The amount to pay is calculated as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
There were some parts of the premises that were not reasonably clean at the end of the tenancy. Showers, some cupboards, the oven and stove top were areas that needed more cleaning to reach the standard of reasonably clean. There was a small stain on the carpet. It is clear that the cleaning carried out by the landlord at the end of the tenancy was to make the premises perfectly clean. From the photos I have assessed that for the cleaning to the standard of reasonably clean and the small carpet stain removal, $250.00 should be paid.

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.
The landlord has claimed the cost of repairs to a powder coated exterior door handle which has been chipped. The door handle was not protected from damage by a door restrainer. It would have been damaged by coming into in contact with a ‘sharp’ aluminium hinge. It damage was foreseeable as a possibility by the landlord and steps could have been taken to limit the door opening to avoid damage. Because the landlord chose not to restrain the door and protect it from damage, the damage is wear and tear. The loss is not recoverable from the tenant.
The landlord has claimed the cost of replacing bathroom mirrors where the silver has peeled from the back of the mirrors. It is most likely that has happened due to condensation. The landlord alleges that the tenants did not use the fan and open the window sufficiently and this caused the damage. However it is known that even where a fan and window are open during showering, condensation can form on mirrors and walls and not dry immediately. The tenants said there were no issues with mould in the bathroom. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the reason the backing failed in the bottom edge of the mirrors was due to a careless way that the tenants had used the fan and window when showering.
The landlord has claimed $1,720.00 for filling some nail holes repainting a lounge wall and repairing a small patch in a bathroom wall and repainting it and repairing a chip in the wall of a staircase and repainting. It is clear that a small amount of filling would be needed before painting. That filler would need sealing but only in the filled areas. I have assessed that cost as $300.00. The painting of the repaired areas took place when the whole interior was repainted. It was repainted before being advertised for sale. The repainting of all the interior was necessary because it was 13 years since the interior had been painted and the property was to be sold.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord 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. The cost of repairing the damage is reasonable because the landlord would not have had that cost, even if repainting was necessary after 13 years. The amount ordered is to repair damage that barely exceeds fair wear and tear. Filing Fee
Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim, the filing fee of $20.44 is ordered. Name Suppression
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with the claim and therefore the landlord’s request for name suppression is not granted. (see Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986). The tenants had substantially succeeded defending the claim and so name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4872190 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4872190 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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