How much money was awarded in case 4951036?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4951036?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4951036?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11100409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4951036?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4951036?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4951036?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11100409-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4951036 — Mould & damp

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4951036 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $109.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $109.25 [The tenant/s]: $1,290.75

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely. [Mr R] represented his wife and himself.

The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and some damage following the end of the tenancy.

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

The landlord sought $109.25 for cleaning. This involved cleaning out the air filters, wiping down some walls and cleaning inside the oven, on top of the stove as well as replacing some curtains that were mouldy.

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

Although the tenant had cleaned the property, he acknowledged that he had not cleaned inside the oven. The tenants had lived there for 18 months and so they should have cleaned the filters in the heat pump and extractor fans. I find that $109.25 is reasonable and that is ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord produced photographs showing that the vanity unit in the bathroom had panels that had broken down. It was said that it was because of splashing water around. The vanity was near new at the start of the tenancy. An invoice was provided for the replacement vanity and the landlord sought $400 being the insurance excess.

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.

Although the damage appears more than fair wear and tear, the landlord has not established that the damage was because of a careless or intentional action by the tenant.

The tenant said that at the first inspection, when the property was managed by a different manager, the tenants pointed out the deterioration of the vanity to the property manager. She told them to keep it wiped down. The tenant tried to tape up the vanity during the tenancy because it was falling apart.

The tenant told the Tribunal that they simply used the vanity for usual activities such as washing their hands.

It is difficult to understand how the vanity ended up deteriorating as much as it had. It is understandable that the owners believe that tenant is responsible. However, I am not prepared to find a tenant liable for water damage in a bathroom, without evidence that the tenant used the bathroom in a way that was unusual or unreasonable. A bathroom vanity should be able to withstand water being splashed about. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for this damage is dismissed.

Both parties have had some success and so I have ordered name suppression.

There is no order for refund of the filing fee.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] are to pay [The landlord/s] $109.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $109.25 [The tenant/s]: $1,290.75

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted remotely. [Mr R] represented his wife and himself.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and some damage following the end of the tenancy.

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

The landlord sought $109.25 for cleaning. This involved cleaning out the air filters, wiping down some walls and cleaning inside the oven, on top of the stove as well as replacing some curtains that were mouldy.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
Although the tenant had cleaned the property, he acknowledged that he had not cleaned inside the oven. The tenants had lived there for 18 months and so they should have cleaned the filters in the heat pump and extractor fans. I find that $109.25 is reasonable and that is ordered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord produced photographs showing that the vanity unit in the bathroom had panels that had broken down. It was said that it was because of splashing water around. The vanity was near new at the start of the tenancy. An invoice was provided for the replacement vanity and the landlord sought $400 being the insurance excess.
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.
Although the damage appears more than fair wear and tear, the landlord has not established that the damage was because of a careless or intentional action by the tenant.
The tenant said that at the first inspection, when the property was managed by a different manager, the tenants pointed out the deterioration of the vanity to the property manager. She told them to keep it wiped down. The tenant tried to tape up the vanity during the tenancy because it was falling apart.
The tenant told the Tribunal that they simply used the vanity for usual activities such as washing their hands.
It is difficult to understand how the vanity ended up deteriorating as much as it had. It is understandable that the owners believe that tenant is responsible. However, I am not prepared to find a tenant liable for water damage in a bathroom, without evidence that the tenant used the bathroom in a way that was unusual or unreasonable. A bathroom vanity should be able to withstand water being splashed about. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for this damage is dismissed.
Both parties have had some success and so I have ordered name suppression.
There is no order for refund of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4951036 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4951036 — Mould & damp

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