What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4904737 about?

The tribunal order states: Kaitlyn Ihly and Benjamin James Cockell to pay The Rent Shop Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 4904737?

Accelerated Depreciation: Bath: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $44.29 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904737?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904737?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10784359-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4904737 about?

The tribunal order states: Kaitlyn Ihly and Benjamin James Cockell to pay The Rent Shop Limited As

How much money was awarded in case 4904737?

Accelerated Depreciation: Bath: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $160.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Credit: $44.29 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904737?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904737?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10784359-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 8 Brunner Street, Murchison, Murchison 7007 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4904737 — Cleanliness

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4904737 — net $265.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$160.00		Cleaning
Accelerated depreciation: bath	$150.00		Accelerated depreciation: bath
Rent credit		$44.29	Rent credit
Total award	$310.00	$44.29
Net award	$265.71
Bond	$1,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$265.71

Order

Kaitlyn Ihly and Benjamin James Cockell to pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Joanna Hopkinson $265.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 (6440650-009) immediately apportioned as follows: The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Joanna Hopkinson: $265.71 Kaitlyn Ihly and Benjamin James Cockell: $974.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants sought the return of their bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation via the bond.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

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 and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. They sought $350.00 compensation for the cost of a professional clean, supported by an invoice.
The tenant disputed the work. She accepted some areas were missed and the oven needed a clean.
The landlord provided the end of tenancy inspection (conducted some three weeks later due to the distance). A series of photos were provided. The description of the inspecting agent did not align with the photos. Doing so can be difficult depending on the photographic subject but I do not find evidentially that the full invoice should be paid by the tenants. Having reviewed the task and time I have award a part-contribution of $160.00.

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 bath was found to have staining at the end of the tenancy. It conforms to a dye type stain that could not be removed by cleaning.
I accept the landlord has established it as more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord sought $550.00 compensation, being the insurance excess. No insurance claim has been lodged yet. The tyranny of distance also causing delays in having a builder inspect. The premises have been listed until recently when the owner withdrew it due to a lack of interest from suitable tenants.
The guiding principle in any tort case is restitution in integrum (a Latin term meaning “restitution to the original position”)– to place the injured party in the same position that it would have been in if the damage had not occurred. Thus, the appropriate measure of compensation for negligent damage is the difference in value immediately before and immediately after the damaging act.
However, in practicality, this principle is oversimplified, as it is often nearly impossible to place a party in the exact same position for a variety of reasons and a court’s task becomes to attempt to do so as closely as possible through damages. To prevent overcompensation or a windfall to the plaintiff, the concept of betterment has developed in the jurisprudence, which essentially limits a plaintiff’s award on account of being placed in a better position than prior to the loss.
The damage is aesthetic but the owner is free to seek insurance protection to replace as desired. In this matter, there is no evidence of loss. Without some cost basis I cannot determine if the excess of $550.00 is lower than what any cost after depreciation or consideration of betterment might be. It would be unjust to ignore the damage however. I have made an award of $150.00 towards the damage to the bath – this reflects accelerated depreciation and that contribution may be used by the owner as she sees fit towards any future replacement or repair strategy. Rent credit
The landlord advised a rent credit of $44.29 was due to the tenants. This has been applied in this order. Filing fee
Given the mixed success for both parties, I leave each to carry their own cost of filing. 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. As it has not been wholly or substantially successful, suppression is not ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4904737 — net $265.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$160.00		Cleaning
Accelerated depreciation: bath	$150.00		Accelerated depreciation: bath
Rent credit		$44.29	Rent credit
Total award	$310.00	$44.29
Net award	$265.71
Bond	$1,240.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$265.71

Order

Kaitlyn Ihly and Benjamin James Cockell to pay The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Joanna Hopkinson $265.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 (6440650-009) immediately apportioned as follows: The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For Joanna Hopkinson: $265.71 Kaitlyn Ihly and Benjamin James Cockell: $974.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants sought the return of their bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation via the bond.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

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 and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claimed the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. They sought $350.00 compensation for the cost of a professional clean, supported by an invoice.
The tenant disputed the work. She accepted some areas were missed and the oven needed a clean.
The landlord provided the end of tenancy inspection (conducted some three weeks later due to the distance). A series of photos were provided. The description of the inspecting agent did not align with the photos. Doing so can be difficult depending on the photographic subject but I do not find evidentially that the full invoice should be paid by the tenants. Having reviewed the task and time I have award a part-contribution of $160.00.

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 bath was found to have staining at the end of the tenancy. It conforms to a dye type stain that could not be removed by cleaning.
I accept the landlord has established it as more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The landlord sought $550.00 compensation, being the insurance excess. No insurance claim has been lodged yet. The tyranny of distance also causing delays in having a builder inspect. The premises have been listed until recently when the owner withdrew it due to a lack of interest from suitable tenants.
The guiding principle in any tort case is restitution in integrum (a Latin term meaning “restitution to the original position”)– to place the injured party in the same position that it would have been in if the damage had not occurred. Thus, the appropriate measure of compensation for negligent damage is the difference in value immediately before and immediately after the damaging act.
However, in practicality, this principle is oversimplified, as it is often nearly impossible to place a party in the exact same position for a variety of reasons and a court’s task becomes to attempt to do so as closely as possible through damages. To prevent overcompensation or a windfall to the plaintiff, the concept of betterment has developed in the jurisprudence, which essentially limits a plaintiff’s award on account of being placed in a better position than prior to the loss.
The damage is aesthetic but the owner is free to seek insurance protection to replace as desired. In this matter, there is no evidence of loss. Without some cost basis I cannot determine if the excess of $550.00 is lower than what any cost after depreciation or consideration of betterment might be. It would be unjust to ignore the damage however. I have made an award of $150.00 towards the damage to the bath – this reflects accelerated depreciation and that contribution may be used by the owner as she sees fit towards any future replacement or repair strategy. Rent credit
The landlord advised a rent credit of $44.29 was due to the tenants. This has been applied in this order. Filing fee
Given the mixed success for both parties, I leave each to carry their own cost of filing. 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. As it has not been wholly or substantially successful, suppression is not ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904737 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 7, 8 Brunner Street, Murchison, Murchison 7007

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904737 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 7, 8 Brunner Street, Murchison, Murchison 7007

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