What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4983108 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 4983108?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Bench Chips: $210.83 awarded to landlord; Spot Patch And Paint Walls: $555.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983108?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983108?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11315551-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4983108 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 4983108?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Bench Chips: $210.83 awarded to landlord; Spot Patch And Paint Walls: $555.61 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4983108?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4983108?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11315551-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4983108 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4983108 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4983108 — net $931.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and weeding	$138.00	the claim for cleaning to 1.5 hours to cover the few areas the tenants missed and that were not reasonably clean. b.
Repairs: spot patch and paint walls	$555.61	Repairs: spot patch and paint walls
Repairs: kitchen bench chips	$210.83	Repairs: kitchen bench chips
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$931.44
Bond	$1,044.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$931.44

Claims and awards for application 4983108 — net $931.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning: and weeding

Amount: $138.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: the claim for cleaning to 1.5 hours to cover the few areas the tenants missed and that were not reasonably clean. b.

Repairs: spot patch and paint walls

Amount: $555.61
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: spot patch and paint walls

Repairs: kitchen bench chips

Amount: $210.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: kitchen bench chips

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $931.44

Bond

Landlord $1,044.36

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $931.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,044.36 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $931.44 [The tenant/s]: $112.92

Reasons

The landlord’s representative and TH for the tenants attended the video hearing today.
This tenancy ended in June 2024.
The parties disagree on some issues affecting part of the bond. The applicable law
Tenants are required to leave premises and gardens (if responsible for those) reasonably clean and tidy; section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
If making a claim for damage, a landlord must prove that this happened during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Fair wear and tear is anything that would happen as a normal and ordinary part of living in a residential property.
If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. Decisions on the claims
After hearing and considering the evidence and submissions of both parties, my decisions are:- a. To reduce the claim for cleaning to 1.5 hours to cover the few areas the tenants missed and that were not reasonably clean. b. To award the claim for weeding gardens as these were not left reasonably tidy. c. To award the full claim for spot patch and painting throughout the various rooms affected. This claim is partially agreed to by the tenants as they accept some of the prior work they did themselves was not to a reasonable standard and needed to be redone. I award the full amount claimed as the damage is proven and the invoice is very economical. A tenant who undertakes repairs themselves has the task of making sure the materials and work are to a reasonably good standard including paint matching. d. That it is more probable than not that at least two of the three small chips on the sink edge of the kitchen bench occurred during the tenancy (one area could not be seen in the ingoing photo). The chips are more than fair wear and tear that could be expected to occur in a residential kitchen. The tenants say they used the kitchen in a normal way, as a workplace with heavy duty kitchen pots and utensils. I find it probable their utensils were better suited to a more robust commercial kitchen and, unfortunately, caused damage. I award two-thirds of the repair invoice. I have reduced this in fairness to the tenants because one applicable area of the bench is not shown in the ingoing photo and because one “small ding” to the bench is mentioned in the ingoing report). Filing fee and suppression of names
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claims, so I also award the filing fee.
Both parties’ names are suppressed from the published order. The landlord is entitled to suppression as it has substantially succeeded with the claims. I suppress the tenants’ names on this occasion because the claims are relatively minor in the context of the tenancy and the landlord agrees to suppression. However, the tenants should be aware that publication of name is the default position where claims are substantially proven, as in this case.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4983108 — net $931.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning: and weeding	$138.00	the claim for cleaning to 1.5 hours to cover the few areas the tenants missed and that were not reasonably clean. b.
Repairs: spot patch and paint walls	$555.61	Repairs: spot patch and paint walls
Repairs: kitchen bench chips	$210.83	Repairs: kitchen bench chips
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$931.44
Bond	$1,044.36
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$931.44

Claims and awards for application 4983108 — net $931.44 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning: and weeding

Amount: $138.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: the claim for cleaning to 1.5 hours to cover the few areas the tenants missed and that were not reasonably clean. b.

Repairs: spot patch and paint walls

Amount: $555.61
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: spot patch and paint walls

Repairs: kitchen bench chips

Amount: $210.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: kitchen bench chips

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Landlord $931.44

Bond

Landlord $1,044.36

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Landlord and Tenant names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $931.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,044.36 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $931.44 [The tenant/s]: $112.92

Reasons

The landlord’s representative and TH for the tenants attended the video hearing today.
This tenancy ended in June 2024.
The parties disagree on some issues affecting part of the bond. The applicable law
Tenants are required to leave premises and gardens (if responsible for those) reasonably clean and tidy; section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
If making a claim for damage, a landlord must prove that this happened during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. Fair wear and tear is anything that would happen as a normal and ordinary part of living in a residential property.
If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. Decisions on the claims
After hearing and considering the evidence and submissions of both parties, my decisions are:- a. To reduce the claim for cleaning to 1.5 hours to cover the few areas the tenants missed and that were not reasonably clean. b. To award the claim for weeding gardens as these were not left reasonably tidy. c. To award the full claim for spot patch and painting throughout the various rooms affected. This claim is partially agreed to by the tenants as they accept some of the prior work they did themselves was not to a reasonable standard and needed to be redone. I award the full amount claimed as the damage is proven and the invoice is very economical. A tenant who undertakes repairs themselves has the task of making sure the materials and work are to a reasonably good standard including paint matching. d. That it is more probable than not that at least two of the three small chips on the sink edge of the kitchen bench occurred during the tenancy (one area could not be seen in the ingoing photo). The chips are more than fair wear and tear that could be expected to occur in a residential kitchen. The tenants say they used the kitchen in a normal way, as a workplace with heavy duty kitchen pots and utensils. I find it probable their utensils were better suited to a more robust commercial kitchen and, unfortunately, caused damage. I award two-thirds of the repair invoice. I have reduced this in fairness to the tenants because one applicable area of the bench is not shown in the ingoing photo and because one “small ding” to the bench is mentioned in the ingoing report). Filing fee and suppression of names
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claims, so I also award the filing fee.
Both parties’ names are suppressed from the published order. The landlord is entitled to suppression as it has substantially succeeded with the claims. I suppress the tenants’ names on this occasion because the claims are relatively minor in the context of the tenancy and the landlord agrees to suppression. However, the tenants should be aware that publication of name is the default position where claims are substantially proven, as in this case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983108 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4983108 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions