What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4948797 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4948797?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4948797?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4948797?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11127413-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4948797 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4948797?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4948797?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4948797?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11127413-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

65 Islington Street, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4948797 — Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenants applied to the Tribunal seeking release of the bond following a dispute between the parties.
The landlord filed a cross-application seeking compensation for damage to the wooden floors. Background:
The landlord stated the property was built in approximately 1910.
The landlord purchased the property in 2014. The hardwood floors in the living room (and other areas of the home) are the same hardwood floors as when he purchased the property.
The landlord says he had the hardwood floors sanded and polished in 2019.
The property has been tenanted since the landlord purchased it in 2014. The landlord stated some of the dents in the floor were caused by tenants prior to these tenants.

Was the damage to the floor fair wear and tear?

The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord claimed the tenants caused damage to the floor which was more than fair wear and tear. The tenants accept there were additional dents in the floors at the end of his tenancy but say these were caused by normal use of a couch on the wooden floors of the living room. Essentially, the tenants claimed it was fair wear and tear.
In support of the landlord’s claim, he produced the following evidence: a. A quote dated 2 September 2024 for sanding and sealing the wooden floors in the hallway, living room, dining, kitchen and bathroom. The quote is for $4,552.85. The landlord confirmed the work has not been undertaken. b. Photographs of the floors taken by the landlord within 1 or 2 weeks of the tenants moving out on 10 June 2024. The landlord circled the dents he says were caused by the tenants (oval shaped dents). The landlord also identified some of the dents which were caused by previous tenants (finer circular dents). c. The landlord had not filed evidence of the condition of the floors at the start of the tenancy. Photographs from an inspection conducted 20 December 2022 were received by email shortly after the hearing. While all evidence must be filed before the hearing, I note that in any event, the tenant accepts that the oval shaped dents in the floor were caused during the tenancy. d. The landlord gave evidence that he had seen exercise equipment, specifically dumbbells, in the property and he believed the tenant caused the dents by, “doing heavy lifting on the couch.”
In response to the landlord’s claim, the tenant produced the following evidence: a. Photographs taken by the tenant recently of the couch which was in the living room during the tenancy. The photographs show the feet of the couch had white plastic fittings. The tenant stated some of the couch legs were on a rug in the living room, but the remainder were directly on the wooden floor. b. In response to the landlord’s claim that the tenant was doing exercise in the living room, the tenant said he did not. He said the dumbbells that were in the home were a prop used in his work and were stored there briefly before being sold. He said he did not exercise in the home, and noted there was no evidence of damage from the dumbbells as they were large, hexagonal shaped dumbbells and the dents are small and oval, which he said was consistent with being caused by the couch legs. The tenant rejected the suggestion he had lifted weights while on the couch. c. The tenant said the only people living in the premises were himself, his wife and their 5-year-old child and that the dents were caused by normal use of the couch on the hardwood floors.
The tenant accepted the dents were caused during the tenancy, therefore that was not in dispute. However, the landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the damage was not fair wear and tear. I do not accept that the damage was caused by the tenant lifting weights on the couch. I accept it is more likely the damage was caused by the couch sitting directly on the wooden floors. It is to be expected that, with floors of this type and age, dents will appear through regular use of furniture directly on them.
Even if the landlord had established the dents in the floor were more than fair wear and tear, I would have found the tenant did not cause the damage carelessly or intentionally. There is no suggestion by the landlord that the damage was caused intentionally. As to whether it was caused carelessly, the tenant stated the home was for his partner and young child and was not used for parties or large events. As above, I do not accept it is likely the tenant was lifting weights on the couch. That was simply the landlord’s theory, which was without foundation. I accept the damage was caused by regular use of a couch on the living room wooden floors and I do not consider it was reasonably foreseeable that regular use of a couch would cause damage to the floors.
Lastly, even if the landlord had established the dents were more than fair wear and tear, and were caused carelessly, I would find the landlord has not sufficiently quantified his claim for compensation. The damage was to the living room floor only. The quote provided is for re-sanding and sealing of multiple rooms and would bring the floors up to a standard that would be better than at the start of the tenancy.
Lastly, as it was only a quote, there is no evidence of actual cost incurred as the landlord has not had the floors re-sanded and sealed.
For all of these reasons the landlord’s application is dismissed and the bond is to be released to the tenants.

Should the landlord reimburse the filing fee?

Given the tenants have wholly succeeded with the claim the landlord must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenants applied to the Tribunal seeking release of the bond following a dispute between the parties.
The landlord filed a cross-application seeking compensation for damage to the wooden floors. Background:
The landlord stated the property was built in approximately 1910.
The landlord purchased the property in 2014. The hardwood floors in the living room (and other areas of the home) are the same hardwood floors as when he purchased the property.
The landlord says he had the hardwood floors sanded and polished in 2019.
The property has been tenanted since the landlord purchased it in 2014. The landlord stated some of the dents in the floor were caused by tenants prior to these tenants.

Was the damage to the floor fair wear and tear?

The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord claimed the tenants caused damage to the floor which was more than fair wear and tear. The tenants accept there were additional dents in the floors at the end of his tenancy but say these were caused by normal use of a couch on the wooden floors of the living room. Essentially, the tenants claimed it was fair wear and tear.
In support of the landlord’s claim, he produced the following evidence: a. A quote dated 2 September 2024 for sanding and sealing the wooden floors in the hallway, living room, dining, kitchen and bathroom. The quote is for $4,552.85. The landlord confirmed the work has not been undertaken. b. Photographs of the floors taken by the landlord within 1 or 2 weeks of the tenants moving out on 10 June 2024. The landlord circled the dents he says were caused by the tenants (oval shaped dents). The landlord also identified some of the dents which were caused by previous tenants (finer circular dents). c. The landlord had not filed evidence of the condition of the floors at the start of the tenancy. Photographs from an inspection conducted 20 December 2022 were received by email shortly after the hearing. While all evidence must be filed before the hearing, I note that in any event, the tenant accepts that the oval shaped dents in the floor were caused during the tenancy. d. The landlord gave evidence that he had seen exercise equipment, specifically dumbbells, in the property and he believed the tenant caused the dents by, “doing heavy lifting on the couch.”
In response to the landlord’s claim, the tenant produced the following evidence: a. Photographs taken by the tenant recently of the couch which was in the living room during the tenancy. The photographs show the feet of the couch had white plastic fittings. The tenant stated some of the couch legs were on a rug in the living room, but the remainder were directly on the wooden floor. b. In response to the landlord’s claim that the tenant was doing exercise in the living room, the tenant said he did not. He said the dumbbells that were in the home were a prop used in his work and were stored there briefly before being sold. He said he did not exercise in the home, and noted there was no evidence of damage from the dumbbells as they were large, hexagonal shaped dumbbells and the dents are small and oval, which he said was consistent with being caused by the couch legs. The tenant rejected the suggestion he had lifted weights while on the couch. c. The tenant said the only people living in the premises were himself, his wife and their 5-year-old child and that the dents were caused by normal use of the couch on the hardwood floors.
The tenant accepted the dents were caused during the tenancy, therefore that was not in dispute. However, the landlord has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the damage was not fair wear and tear. I do not accept that the damage was caused by the tenant lifting weights on the couch. I accept it is more likely the damage was caused by the couch sitting directly on the wooden floors. It is to be expected that, with floors of this type and age, dents will appear through regular use of furniture directly on them.
Even if the landlord had established the dents in the floor were more than fair wear and tear, I would have found the tenant did not cause the damage carelessly or intentionally. There is no suggestion by the landlord that the damage was caused intentionally. As to whether it was caused carelessly, the tenant stated the home was for his partner and young child and was not used for parties or large events. As above, I do not accept it is likely the tenant was lifting weights on the couch. That was simply the landlord’s theory, which was without foundation. I accept the damage was caused by regular use of a couch on the living room wooden floors and I do not consider it was reasonably foreseeable that regular use of a couch would cause damage to the floors.
Lastly, even if the landlord had established the dents were more than fair wear and tear, and were caused carelessly, I would find the landlord has not sufficiently quantified his claim for compensation. The damage was to the living room floor only. The quote provided is for re-sanding and sealing of multiple rooms and would bring the floors up to a standard that would be better than at the start of the tenancy.
Lastly, as it was only a quote, there is no evidence of actual cost incurred as the landlord has not had the floors re-sanded and sealed.
For all of these reasons the landlord’s application is dismissed and the bond is to be released to the tenants.

Should the landlord reimburse the filing fee?

Given the tenants have wholly succeeded with the claim the landlord must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4948797 — Property damage at 65 Islington Street, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4948797 — Property damage at 65 Islington Street, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the damage to the floor fair wear and tear?

Should the landlord reimburse the filing fee?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was the damage to the floor fair wear and tear?

Should the landlord reimburse the filing fee?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions