What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4974594 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4974594?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4974594?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4974594?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11094422-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4974594 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4974594?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4974594?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4974594?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11094422-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5A Mahoe Avenue, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4974594 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

This tenancy began on 30 September 2010. The tenant lived in the main house (number 5A) and the landlord lived in a separate addition at the rear (number 5).

The tenancy ended on 18 July 2024 after the landlord served a 63 day notice on 13 May 2024. The tenant found a new tenancy and moved out three weeks prior to the end of the tenancy, but paid rent until the end of the tenancy period.

Both the landlord and tenant have filed claims in the Tribunal.

The landlord has applied for compensation for water rates, various damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy as detailed below: a. Water usage (2010 – 2014); b. Various damage: i. Window bolt; ii. Burn on floor; iii. Laundry tub; iv. Replacement lights; v. Smoke alarms; vi. Kitchen cupboards; vii. Internal cupboard damage; viii. Damage to fireplace surround; ix. Rat bait and station; and x. Bosch oven door.

The tenant has applied for refund of her bond. Onus and evidence

I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all of the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

For the sake of brevity I have not referred to all the evidence presented, however the parties can be assured that it has all been carefully considered. Landlord’s claims Water use

The landlord says that the tenant owes the sum of $1,005.68 for water used by the tenant’s husband for the period 2010 to 2014.

The landlord says that the tenant moved in with her daughter and that was included in the rent. She says that the tenant’s husband officially moved in during 2014 (and the rent was increased accordingly as the water was not separately metered) but that he had effectively been living there since 2010.

The tenant said that she and her husband were separated when she moved into the tenancy but that he would come to the property regularly to see their daughter. She said that she and her husband reconciled in 2013 and produced and email where she advised the landlord and asked if the landlord was comfortable with her husband moving in. The landlord responded by email to say that she was. When the rent was increased in 2014 to take into account additional water use there was no mention of a claim for previous usage.

The landlord’s claim is not borne out by the evidence but in any event this claim is clearly statute barred as it is well outside the six year limitation period set out in the Limitation Act 2010 1 .

This landlord’s claim for water is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Window bolt and burn on floor

The landlord claimed compensation for a sawn-off window lock bolt ($186.88) and a burn in the floor (insurance excess $400). The landlord produced a photo of the bolt and the burn.

The tenant denied having altered the window bolts in any way and said that they had not been aware of any burn on the floor.

The landlord did not have any evidence of the condition of the bolt or the floor at the start of the tenancy. The landlord has not proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy.

The claims for the bolt and the burn are not proved and are dismissed. Laundry tub

The landlord said that when the tenant’s friend was moving the tenant’s belongings out of the property and assisting with cleaning on 25 June 2024 she heard a loud “crack” coming from inside the property.

The landlord said that she went to the door but the tenant’s friend denied her entry and said that he would need to contact a tradesperson but did not tell her why.

She said that when she entered the property she found that the laundry tub had been pulled out from the wall and that the hoses leaked when the tap was turned on.

The landlord provided some photographs from and inspection on 12 June 2024 and 25 June 2024 but the first photo is only of a pipe inside the tub. It is not possible to see any damage in the photos or to compare the position of the tub in relation to the wall on each date.

The landlord produced a quote for repairs. 1 See section 11, Limitation Act 2020

The tenant said that she paid for professional movers and cleaners and that no issues were reported to her by either. She said that her friend had only attended on 25 June 2024 to do a final inspection after the cleaning and moving had been done.

The tenant produced a statutory declaration from her friend which confirms that the house movers attended on 22 June 2024 and the cleaners attended on 24 June 2024. The statutory declaration also refers to a number of outstanding maintenance items.

Having considered all of the evidence I do not consider that the landlord has proved that the damage has occurred that is more than wear and tear. The landlord’s claim that a loud “bang” was the cause of damage to the laundry tub is speculative and not supported by the evidence.

In my view it is just as likely that any damage to the pipes connected to the tub are wear and tear. The landlord confirmed that tub was at least 14 years old.

This claim is not proved and is dismissed. Lights

The landlord claimed the cost of replacing a halogen light for the rangehood ($43.65) and in the study ($39.80).

In my view light bulbs are chattels and are subject to wear and tear. It is common knowledge that light bulbs have a finite life span and in my view there is no basis for an order for replacement light bulbs unless damage is proved beyond wear and tear.

The claim for replacement bulbs is dismissed. Smoke alarms

The landlord claimed the cost of two smoke alarms which were given to the tenant to replace existing smoke alarms but were mistakenly taken when the tenant’s friends moved her.

The tenant brought the smoke alarms to the hearing and gave them to the landlord. The landlord then agreed to withdraw her claim for compensation for the two smoke alarms. Kitchen cupboards

The landlord claimed that there were strange oil marks on the kitchen cupboards that could only be seen from below using a mirror. The landlord sought an insurance excess of $400 for damage to the cupboards.

The tenant said that the kitchen had just been used in the normal way. She denied causing any damage.

The landlord confirmed that the kitchen was at least 14 years old. In my view, having viewed the photos and having heard from both parties, I consider that the damage to the cupboards is very minor and is simply wear and tear. It is common for mdf cupboards to deteriorate over time.

The claim for damage to the kitchen cupboards is dismissed. Internal cupboard damage

The landlord claimed that the tenant had caused water damage to the kitchen cupboards under the sink because they had taped over the overflow outlet.

The landlord produced photos showing that the mdf inside the cupboards had deteriorated. The landlord sought $150 for each panel to be replaced, based on a verbal estimate from Bunnings.

The landlord did not have any photos showing the state of the mdf at the start of the tenancy. As with the kitchen cupboards, some deterioration in mdf is common and unless proved otherwise is wear and tear.

I do not consider that the landlord has proved that the damage is more than wear and tear.

The claim for internal cupboard damage is dismissed. VHT Flameproof spray paint

The landlord said that the tenants used thick silver tape to seal up an open fireplace and that at the end of the tenancy there were some marks left from the tape. The landlord produced photos of the fireplace but it was very difficult to see any damage.

The landlord claims the amount of $42.00 for the cost of repainting around the fireplace.

The tenant said that there was cold draught coming from the fireplace which is why she and her husband sealed it. She said that they removed the tape when they left.

I do not consider that the landlord has proved damage to the fireplace. In any event, I consider that the tenant was entitled to seal up the fireplace to prevent draughts and any remaining tape is a very minor issue. It is to be expected that some painting will be required after a tenancy of this duration. Rat bait and station

The landlord claimed for the cost of a rat bait and station. After the tenant had moved out the landlord thought that she heard a mouse entering through the cat door and so went in and placed a rat bait and station in the house.

The landlord also gave evidence that she had to put rat bait stations around the property generally as the neighbours kept chickens.

I am unable to find any breach by the tenant of her obligations. The placing of a rat bait and station once the property was empty was a sensible step for the landlord to take once the tenant has left but the cost of doing is not the responsibility of the tenant. Bosch oven door

The landlord claimed that the oven door, which has a stainless steel finish, was not properly cleaned when the tenant moved out as it has rust patches. The tenant returned to clean the area but the landlord was not satisfied and has claimed for the cost of replacing the oven door.

The landlord explained that the oven had been replaced in May 2021 and so was only approximately 3 years old.

The landlord produced a photo of the oven door, after cleaning by the tenant, which shows a very small area of rust at the side of the oven door glass, less than 1cm across. She produced an online advertisement for a replacement oven door.

In my view the tenant has cleaned the outside of the oven as much as is possible. Anything further can only be wear and tear. It is usual for the surfaces to wear over time and, having viewed the photos, I consider that this is what has happened here. There has been no breach by the tenant of her obligations. I note in addition that the landlord has not yet replaced the oven door. Tenant’s claim

As the landlord’s claims have been dismissed the tenant is entitled to the refund of her bond. Name suppression

The tenant is entitled to an order for name suppression as the successful party (see section 95A RTA).