What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4961173 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4961173?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Final Gas Bill: $28.38 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4961173?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4961173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11351854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4961173 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4961173?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Final Gas Bill: $28.38 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4961173?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4961173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11351854-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Room Suite 408, 76 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4961173 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4961173 — net $358.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Final gas bill	$28.38		Final gas bill
Replacement of blinds (less depreciation	$200.00		Replacement of blinds (less depreciation
Bond retained by landlord		$560.00	Bond retained by landlord
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$228.38	$587.00
Net award		$358.62
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$358.62

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Benjimin Sheng must pay [The tenant/s] $558.62 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant vacated and left the fixed term tenancy on 19 July 2024.
I address the tenant’s various claims filed against the landlord as follows. Whether the landlord has failed in his obligations on maintenance
The tenant has not substantiated his claim that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes standards in respect of the kitchen/rangehood extractor fan and the bedroom heating.
The tenant has not adduced any evidence that there is a requirement that rangehood extractor fans must discharge fumes directly out of the unit. There is a rangehood extractor fan which appears to be in working order, despite not discharging fumes via ducting to the outside of the premises.
Similarly, there is no objective material before the Tribunal that the heating device provided to the bedroom is faulty or ‘is so dusty’ that it could not be operated (as alleged by the tenant).
Consequently, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation on the alleged breach of maintenance obligations by the landlord. Whether the landlord is entitled to retain $560.00 from the bond
Just before the tenant returned to his home country, the tenant signed a blank bond refund form to which the landlord later completed and submitted to the Bond Centre.
The landlord directed the Bond Centre to refund $1,040.00 of the $1,600.00 bond to the tenant, and $560.00 to the landlord.
The tenant contends that this is unlawful and that the tenant has not expressly consented to the deduction of $560.00 from the bond to the landlord.
I find that the tenant has impliedly consented to the landlord deducting a fair and reasonable amount from the bond when the tenant signed a blank bond refund form and handed it to the landlord for further action.
Consequently, I reject the tenant’s claim that the landlord has committed any unlawful act by completing the bond refund form and submitting it to the Bond Centre.
That said, it is open for the tenant to now dispute the landlord’s deduction from the bond and seek the return of the $560.00.
My determination on whether the tenant is entitled to claim all or part of the $560.00 bond hinges on whether the landlord has a justifiable claim against all or part of the $560.00 retained by the landlord.
Against that backdrop, the landlord maintains that he has a valid claim against the tenant for amounts that exceeded the bond.
I now address each of the landlord’s claims as follows.
The tenant accepts the charge of $28.38 for outstanding gas bill. I consider that the landlord is entitled to retain this from the $560.00 bond that has been paid to the landlord.
I do not consider that the landlord could seek advertising costs of $450.00 against the tenant. The landlord has entered into another fixed term tenancy of a year with the replacement tenant (‘Z’) found by the current tenant L. By doing so, I consider that the current tenant’s obligations under the fixed term have come to an end as Z’s fixed term tenancy superseded L’s. The fact that Z vacated 3 months later is immaterial; L’s tenancy has duly come to an end by consent of the parties on Z being the new tenant of the landlord. Consequently, I do not consider that the tenant is liable to pay advertising costs incurred by the landlord in mid August 2024.
The landlord’s claim of $150.00 for the repairs to the lock is also unsuccessful. The repairs were undertaken weeks after the tenant has vacated and the new tenant Z has already moved in. There is insufficient evidence that the tenant has damaged the lock in the first place. I do not consider that the landlord is entitled to retain $150.00 from the $560.00 bond that has been paid to the landlord.
The landlord’s claim for flooring repairs of $2,235.60 for flooring repairs is also unsuccessful. The repairs were undertaken weeks after the tenant has vacated and the new tenant Z has already moved in. There is insufficient evidence that the damage to flooring occurred during L’s tenancy. I do not consider that the landlord is entitled to retain any flooring repair costs from the $560.00 bond that has been paid to the landlord.
The landlord’s claim of $350.00 plus GST for replacement of the vertical blind is successful in part. The replacement of the blinds was undertaken on 12 August 2024, which was weeks after the tenant has vacated and the new tenant Z has already moved in. However, there is evidence of mould on the blinds which occurred during L’s tenancy. I consider that the tenant has not left the premises reasonably clean and tidy, thereby necessitating the landlord in replacing the blinds. In my determination that the landlord is allowed to retain $200.00, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position he would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the blinds at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Ultimately, I consider that the landlord is only entitled to retain $228.38 from the $560.00 bond that the landlord has kept for himself.
Against those amounts, I also award the tenant the filing fee paid for this application and order suppression of the tenant’s name as the successful party.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4961173 — net $358.62 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Final gas bill	$28.38		Final gas bill
Replacement of blinds (less depreciation	$200.00		Replacement of blinds (less depreciation
Bond retained by landlord		$560.00	Bond retained by landlord
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$228.38	$587.00
Net award		$358.62
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$358.62

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Benjimin Sheng must pay [The tenant/s] $558.62 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant vacated and left the fixed term tenancy on 19 July 2024.
I address the tenant’s various claims filed against the landlord as follows. Whether the landlord has failed in his obligations on maintenance
The tenant has not substantiated his claim that the landlord has breached the Healthy Homes standards in respect of the kitchen/rangehood extractor fan and the bedroom heating.
The tenant has not adduced any evidence that there is a requirement that rangehood extractor fans must discharge fumes directly out of the unit. There is a rangehood extractor fan which appears to be in working order, despite not discharging fumes via ducting to the outside of the premises.
Similarly, there is no objective material before the Tribunal that the heating device provided to the bedroom is faulty or ‘is so dusty’ that it could not be operated (as alleged by the tenant).
Consequently, I dismiss the tenant’s claim for compensation on the alleged breach of maintenance obligations by the landlord. Whether the landlord is entitled to retain $560.00 from the bond
Just before the tenant returned to his home country, the tenant signed a blank bond refund form to which the landlord later completed and submitted to the Bond Centre.
The landlord directed the Bond Centre to refund $1,040.00 of the $1,600.00 bond to the tenant, and $560.00 to the landlord.
The tenant contends that this is unlawful and that the tenant has not expressly consented to the deduction of $560.00 from the bond to the landlord.
I find that the tenant has impliedly consented to the landlord deducting a fair and reasonable amount from the bond when the tenant signed a blank bond refund form and handed it to the landlord for further action.
Consequently, I reject the tenant’s claim that the landlord has committed any unlawful act by completing the bond refund form and submitting it to the Bond Centre.
That said, it is open for the tenant to now dispute the landlord’s deduction from the bond and seek the return of the $560.00.
My determination on whether the tenant is entitled to claim all or part of the $560.00 bond hinges on whether the landlord has a justifiable claim against all or part of the $560.00 retained by the landlord.
Against that backdrop, the landlord maintains that he has a valid claim against the tenant for amounts that exceeded the bond.
I now address each of the landlord’s claims as follows.
The tenant accepts the charge of $28.38 for outstanding gas bill. I consider that the landlord is entitled to retain this from the $560.00 bond that has been paid to the landlord.
I do not consider that the landlord could seek advertising costs of $450.00 against the tenant. The landlord has entered into another fixed term tenancy of a year with the replacement tenant (‘Z’) found by the current tenant L. By doing so, I consider that the current tenant’s obligations under the fixed term have come to an end as Z’s fixed term tenancy superseded L’s. The fact that Z vacated 3 months later is immaterial; L’s tenancy has duly come to an end by consent of the parties on Z being the new tenant of the landlord. Consequently, I do not consider that the tenant is liable to pay advertising costs incurred by the landlord in mid August 2024.
The landlord’s claim of $150.00 for the repairs to the lock is also unsuccessful. The repairs were undertaken weeks after the tenant has vacated and the new tenant Z has already moved in. There is insufficient evidence that the tenant has damaged the lock in the first place. I do not consider that the landlord is entitled to retain $150.00 from the $560.00 bond that has been paid to the landlord.
The landlord’s claim for flooring repairs of $2,235.60 for flooring repairs is also unsuccessful. The repairs were undertaken weeks after the tenant has vacated and the new tenant Z has already moved in. There is insufficient evidence that the damage to flooring occurred during L’s tenancy. I do not consider that the landlord is entitled to retain any flooring repair costs from the $560.00 bond that has been paid to the landlord.
The landlord’s claim of $350.00 plus GST for replacement of the vertical blind is successful in part. The replacement of the blinds was undertaken on 12 August 2024, which was weeks after the tenant has vacated and the new tenant Z has already moved in. However, there is evidence of mould on the blinds which occurred during L’s tenancy. I consider that the tenant has not left the premises reasonably clean and tidy, thereby necessitating the landlord in replacing the blinds. In my determination that the landlord is allowed to retain $200.00, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position he would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the blinds at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Ultimately, I consider that the landlord is only entitled to retain $228.38 from the $560.00 bond that the landlord has kept for himself.
Against those amounts, I also award the tenant the filing fee paid for this application and order suppression of the tenant’s name as the successful party.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4961173 — Property damage at Room Suite 408, 76 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4961173 — Property damage at Room Suite 408, 76 Wakefield Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions