What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4925553 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Oxygen.Co.Nz Ltd On Behalf Of Sam Miller $230

How much money was awarded in case 4925553?

The reconciled net award was $230.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4925553?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4925553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10587937-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4925553 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Oxygen.Co.Nz Ltd On Behalf Of Sam Miller $230

How much money was awarded in case 4925553?

The reconciled net award was $230.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4925553?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4925553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10587937-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

34B Garden Road, Avalon, Lower Hutt 5011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4925553 — Tenancy dispute

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Oxygen.Co.Nz Ltd On Behalf Of Sam Miller $230 compensation for required repair work from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Oxygen.Co.Nz Ltd On Behalf Of Sam Miller: $230.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,250.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Du Plessis represented the landlord. [The tenant/s] represented the tenants.
The landlord is claiming $1,337.70 compensation for having to replace the pantry sliding door, overhead panel and pull-out base unit because of locks left on the cabinetry at the end of the tenancy. These locks were installed by the tenants and have now been removed leaving holes in the cabinetry.
Ms Du Plessis explains that the kitchen was new at the commencement of the tenancy and built to a high specification. She says the kitchen is specialized with a specialized coating and as such, a repair would not be sufficient and the cabinetry should be replaced.
[The tenant/s] acknowledges that they should have sought consent during the tenancy to install the childproofing locks. He also acknowledges they should have remediated the holes before they vacated and apologises for their oversight at this stressful time. He explains that they are willing to pay a reasonable repair cost but does not agree that the cabinetry requires replacement.
[The tenant/s] submits that compensation between $100 and $200 is reasonable and has provided examples of recent Tenancy Tribunal decisions that award compensation of similar amounts for repairing similar holes.
[The tenant/s] provided a letter from a builder who ostensibly specialises in joinery and kitchen installations. The builder states that having looked at the photos provided, it is possible to repair the holes relatively easily. He estimates materials to cost less than $100 and the repair would require “a couple hours labour”. The law & discussion
The relevant is law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). It is agreed that the holes were caused during the tenancy and require remediation. The question is what amount of compensation, or method of remediation, is reasonable in the circumstances.
Section 42 of the RTA states that a tenant shall not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior consent of the landlord. Section 42B RTA states that a landlord must not withhold consent to a minor change (a minor change being defined in the section) to the premise. If a minor change is made by a tenant with landlord consent, the tenant must before the end of the tenancy return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor change was made.
Section 49B of the RTA states that a tenant is liable for intentional damage caused during the tenancy. Intentional damage would cover holes drilled intentionally.
Whichever way you consider the matter, either intentional damage or an unrepaired minor change, the tenants are liable for repairing the holes.
Awards of damages must flow naturally from the breach and be reasonable. 1 The Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord is entitled to 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 primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
Section 42B(4) of the RTA required these tenants to have returned the kitchen to a condition that is substantially the same as it was before the locks were installed. They did not do that; accordingly the landlord is entitled to compensation to achieve the same result.
I must make a decision based on the evidence I have before me. The evidence does not assert the owner’s view that the damage cannot be repaired, in fact to the contrary. [The tenant/s] builder’s assessment is that it can be repaired to a suitable standard. There is no evidence from the landlord’s joiner that a repair, if undertaken properly, would be substandard.
It is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear. That is an incident of people living in the premises, and that damage (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives. A landlord cannot therefore expect their property to be returned to them in exactly the state it was provided.
The damage consists of: a. Four screw holes in the top of the pantry door where the sliding bolt lock was affixed. b. One hole in the pantry overhead panel that was used for the lock’s bolt. c. Three screw holes on the inside of the pull-out base unit that attached the child lock. 1 Section 85 of the RTA
The holes are unsightly, particularly the ones on the pantry door and are of no use to the landlord. They do not however impact the use of the kitchen. No remedial work has as yet been undertaken pending this decision.
Having carefully considered the situation I am satisfied that an award of $230 compensation is reasonable in the circumstances. This covers the estimated cost of materials and two hours labour as assessed by the builder’s letter. As above, I do not find that replacement is justified. The evidence establishes that the eight holes can be filled and covered with silicone or laminate to return this cabinetry to substantially the same state in which it was provided.
I appreciate that this kitchen is dear to the owner’s heart, and it is certainly in a beautiful condition. However, as stated above, it is not reasonable to expect to rent a property to a family to reside in and have it returned in exactly the same state.
Accordingly, I direct that the tenants pay the landlord $230 from the bond as compensation for this repair.

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Section 102(4)(b) of the RTA allows the Tribunal discretion to award reimbursement of the filing fee when the applicant has been partly successful. In this instance I decline to make such an award as I consider the extent of the claim was unreasonable in the circumstances. The tenants had offered to pay a reasonable amount of compensation which was declined.

Should suppression orders be made?

As the tenants consent to the amount of compensation ordered, it is appropriate that they succeed in their application for suppression orders. 2
As the landlord did not seek suppression, no orders were made in their favour.

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Oxygen.Co.Nz Ltd On Behalf Of Sam Miller $230 compensation for required repair work from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Oxygen.Co.Nz Ltd On Behalf Of Sam Miller: $230.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,250.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Du Plessis represented the landlord. [The tenant/s] represented the tenants.
The landlord is claiming $1,337.70 compensation for having to replace the pantry sliding door, overhead panel and pull-out base unit because of locks left on the cabinetry at the end of the tenancy. These locks were installed by the tenants and have now been removed leaving holes in the cabinetry.
Ms Du Plessis explains that the kitchen was new at the commencement of the tenancy and built to a high specification. She says the kitchen is specialized with a specialized coating and as such, a repair would not be sufficient and the cabinetry should be replaced.
[The tenant/s] acknowledges that they should have sought consent during the tenancy to install the childproofing locks. He also acknowledges they should have remediated the holes before they vacated and apologises for their oversight at this stressful time. He explains that they are willing to pay a reasonable repair cost but does not agree that the cabinetry requires replacement.
[The tenant/s] submits that compensation between $100 and $200 is reasonable and has provided examples of recent Tenancy Tribunal decisions that award compensation of similar amounts for repairing similar holes.
[The tenant/s] provided a letter from a builder who ostensibly specialises in joinery and kitchen installations. The builder states that having looked at the photos provided, it is possible to repair the holes relatively easily. He estimates materials to cost less than $100 and the repair would require “a couple hours labour”. The law & discussion
The relevant is law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). It is agreed that the holes were caused during the tenancy and require remediation. The question is what amount of compensation, or method of remediation, is reasonable in the circumstances.
Section 42 of the RTA states that a tenant shall not affix any fixture to the premises, or make any renovation, alteration, or addition of or to the premises, except in accordance with the tenancy agreement or with the prior consent of the landlord. Section 42B RTA states that a landlord must not withhold consent to a minor change (a minor change being defined in the section) to the premise. If a minor change is made by a tenant with landlord consent, the tenant must before the end of the tenancy return the premises to a condition that is substantially the same as the condition that the premises were in before the minor change was made.
Section 49B of the RTA states that a tenant is liable for intentional damage caused during the tenancy. Intentional damage would cover holes drilled intentionally.
Whichever way you consider the matter, either intentional damage or an unrepaired minor change, the tenants are liable for repairing the holes.
Awards of damages must flow naturally from the breach and be reasonable. 1 The Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord is entitled to 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 primary purpose of awarding compensation is to reflect the extent of the loss actually and reasonably suffered by the injured party.
Section 42B(4) of the RTA required these tenants to have returned the kitchen to a condition that is substantially the same as it was before the locks were installed. They did not do that; accordingly the landlord is entitled to compensation to achieve the same result.
I must make a decision based on the evidence I have before me. The evidence does not assert the owner’s view that the damage cannot be repaired, in fact to the contrary. [The tenant/s] builder’s assessment is that it can be repaired to a suitable standard. There is no evidence from the landlord’s joiner that a repair, if undertaken properly, would be substandard.
It is manifest that when a landlord rents premises to a tenant, that the tenants will live in the dwelling, and in the process cause some wear and tear. That is an incident of people living in the premises, and that damage (wear and tear) is ‘compensated’ by way of the rent payments the landlord receives. A landlord cannot therefore expect their property to be returned to them in exactly the state it was provided.
The damage consists of: a. Four screw holes in the top of the pantry door where the sliding bolt lock was affixed. b. One hole in the pantry overhead panel that was used for the lock’s bolt. c. Three screw holes on the inside of the pull-out base unit that attached the child lock. 1 Section 85 of the RTA
The holes are unsightly, particularly the ones on the pantry door and are of no use to the landlord. They do not however impact the use of the kitchen. No remedial work has as yet been undertaken pending this decision.
Having carefully considered the situation I am satisfied that an award of $230 compensation is reasonable in the circumstances. This covers the estimated cost of materials and two hours labour as assessed by the builder’s letter. As above, I do not find that replacement is justified. The evidence establishes that the eight holes can be filled and covered with silicone or laminate to return this cabinetry to substantially the same state in which it was provided.
I appreciate that this kitchen is dear to the owner’s heart, and it is certainly in a beautiful condition. However, as stated above, it is not reasonable to expect to rent a property to a family to reside in and have it returned in exactly the same state.
Accordingly, I direct that the tenants pay the landlord $230 from the bond as compensation for this repair.

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Section 102(4)(b) of the RTA allows the Tribunal discretion to award reimbursement of the filing fee when the applicant has been partly successful. In this instance I decline to make such an award as I consider the extent of the claim was unreasonable in the circumstances. The tenants had offered to pay a reasonable amount of compensation which was declined.

Should suppression orders be made?

As the tenants consent to the amount of compensation ordered, it is appropriate that they succeed in their application for suppression orders. 2
As the landlord did not seek suppression, no orders were made in their favour.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4925553 — Tenancy dispute at 34B Garden Road, Avalon, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4925553 — Tenancy dispute at 34B Garden Road, Avalon, Lower Hutt 5011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Should suppression orders be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the filing fee be reimbursed?

Should suppression orders be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions