What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4916377?

The tribunal order states: Ric Parore must pay Rebecca Godfrey $945.97 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4916377?

Cleaning: $139.60 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $7.12 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4515036 D…: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $457.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $104.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $65.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916377?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916377?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11024385-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4916377?

The tribunal order states: Ric Parore must pay Rebecca Godfrey $945.97 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4916377?

Cleaning: $139.60 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lightbulbs: $7.12 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 4515036 D…: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $25.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $457.34 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $104.47 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $65.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916377?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916377?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11024385-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2A, 75 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4916377 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4916377. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4515036 dated 16/03/2023	$20.44	Previous order application 4515036 dated 16/03/2023
Cleaning	$139.60	Cleaning
Replace damaged carpet	$100.00	Replace damaged carpet
Remove adhesive decals and repair walls	$25.00	Remove adhesive decals and repair walls
Light bulb replacement	$7.12	Light bulb replacement
Locks and keys replacement	$457.34	Locks and keys replacement
Swipe cards replacement	$104.47	Swipe cards replacement
Garage remote replacement	$65.00	Garage remote replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Bond	$2,100.00

Ms Godfrey attended the hearing with Steven Doma. Mr Parore attended the hearing with Mike Forster. 1

Ms Godfrey seeks orders for compensation, refund of the bond, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment out of the bond following the end of the tenancy on .

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

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and return all keys and security devices. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in two minor respects: the oven needed cleaning and there was some mould in the area of the bedroom’s wardrobe. The landlord did the cleaning herself. The Tribunal orders $139.60 as sought. That amount is less than a professional cleaner would have charged.

The tenant did not return the keys, swipe cards, or garage remote. The landlord had to replace the premises’ locks and keys, obtain new swipe cards, and a garage remote.

Mr Doma changed the locks. Ms Godfrey claims for his labour. Mr Doma’s labour less $90.00, and the cost of the replacement locks and keys is allowed.

The swipe card replacement costs are allowed. Fifty per cent of the garage remote cost is allowed to account for depreciation.

The cost to replace one light bulb is allowed.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Ms Godfrey claims the tenant’s dehumidifier stained the carpet in the living room, failed to report a leak that damaged the carpet in the bedroom, that the bedroom cupboard door was likewise water-damaged, damaged a coffee table and a bookcase, and did not remove decals from the bedroom wall. 1 I heard this matter on 30 October 2024.

In a damage claim, the 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. 2

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

I am satisfied that the dehumidifier-related damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The Tribunal orders $100.00 towards the landlord’s costs to replace the carpet. The modesty of the award is due to the age of the carpet, which was due for replacement in any event.

I am not satisfied that the damage to the bedroom door and carpet occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The same applies to the coffee table and the bookcase. The landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the condition of these items prior to the tenancy beginning. The water ingress that caused the damage to the door and the carpet in the bedroom may not have been observable and may have also occurred before the tenancy began. Even if the tenant had noticed the water ingress earlier and reported it to the landlord, the damage would likely already have been done.

During the tenancy, the tenant’s partner put some stick-on decals on the bedroom wall. The tenant seeks an order for $25.00 to remove them and repair the wall. That amount is reasonable. The Tribunal makes the order sought.

The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

The tenant must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. Earlier decision

The Tribunal ordered a filing fee in favour of the tenant in an earlier decision relating to this tenancy. That order is added to this one for convenience. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B RTA. Bond

Tenancy Services is to pay the bond out to the parties in accordance with the orders in this decision.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4916377. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 4515036 dated 16/03/2023	$20.44	Previous order application 4515036 dated 16/03/2023
Cleaning	$139.60	Cleaning
Replace damaged carpet	$100.00	Replace damaged carpet
Remove adhesive decals and repair walls	$25.00	Remove adhesive decals and repair walls
Light bulb replacement	$7.12	Light bulb replacement
Locks and keys replacement	$457.34	Locks and keys replacement
Swipe cards replacement	$104.47	Swipe cards replacement
Garage remote replacement	$65.00	Garage remote replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Bond	$2,100.00

Order

Ric Parore must pay Rebecca Godfrey $945.97 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,100.00 (3266604-011) immediately apportioned as follows: Rebecca Godfrey: $945.97 Ric Parore: $1,154.03

Reasons

Ms Godfrey attended the hearing with Steven Doma. Mr Parore attended the hearing with Mike Forster. 1
Ms Godfrey seeks orders for compensation, refund of the bond, reimbursement of the filing fee, and payment out of the bond following the end of the tenancy on .

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

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and return all keys and security devices. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy in two minor respects: the oven needed cleaning and there was some mould in the area of the bedroom’s wardrobe. The landlord did the cleaning herself. The Tribunal orders $139.60 as sought. That amount is less than a professional cleaner would have charged.
The tenant did not return the keys, swipe cards, or garage remote. The landlord had to replace the premises’ locks and keys, obtain new swipe cards, and a garage remote.
Mr Doma changed the locks. Ms Godfrey claims for his labour. Mr Doma’s labour less $90.00, and the cost of the replacement locks and keys is allowed.
The swipe card replacement costs are allowed. Fifty per cent of the garage remote cost is allowed to account for depreciation.
The cost to replace one light bulb is allowed.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Ms Godfrey claims the tenant’s dehumidifier stained the carpet in the living room, failed to report a leak that damaged the carpet in the bedroom, that the bedroom cupboard door was likewise water-damaged, damaged a coffee table and a bookcase, and did not remove decals from the bedroom wall. 1 I heard this matter on 30 October 2024.
In a damage claim, the 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. 2
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I am satisfied that the dehumidifier-related damage occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The Tribunal orders $100.00 towards the landlord’s costs to replace the carpet. The modesty of the award is due to the age of the carpet, which was due for replacement in any event.
I am not satisfied that the damage to the bedroom door and carpet occurred during the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The same applies to the coffee table and the bookcase. The landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the condition of these items prior to the tenancy beginning. The water ingress that caused the damage to the door and the carpet in the bedroom may not have been observable and may have also occurred before the tenancy began. Even if the tenant had noticed the water ingress earlier and reported it to the landlord, the damage would likely already have been done.
During the tenancy, the tenant’s partner put some stick-on decals on the bedroom wall. The tenant seeks an order for $25.00 to remove them and repair the wall. That amount is reasonable. The Tribunal makes the order sought.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
The tenant must reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. Earlier decision
The Tribunal ordered a filing fee in favour of the tenant in an earlier decision relating to this tenancy. That order is added to this one for convenience. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B RTA. Bond
Tenancy Services is to pay the bond out to the parties in accordance with the orders in this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916377 — Property damage at 2A, 75 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916377 — Property damage at 2A, 75 Anzac Avenue, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010,

At a glance

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

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