What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5010529 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 5010529?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5010529?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5010529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11222901-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5010529 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 5010529?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5010529?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5010529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11222901-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2 Greenhaven Avenue, Papakura, Papakura 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5010529 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5010529 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Csi Property Management Limited as agent for Hai Phuong Tran and Lam My Pham must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, as calculated in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and owner of the property attended the hearing, as well as the tenant.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond and the landlord has applied for compensation and a refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has specifically claimed for the cost of replacing bathroom light bulbs, curtain damage and wall and ceiling damage.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must replace standard light bulbs. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has provided a photograph of the light bulbs that required replacing at the end of the tenancy. These are bathroom light bulbs in a heat lamp unit, and accordingly require heat lamp bulbs. In my view these are not standard lightbulbs and there is no obligation on the tenant to replace these at the end of the tenancy.
In any event, the amount claimed for lightbulbs is combined with the amount for “curtains” and totals $334.00. No evidence has been provided on what or how the amount for lightbulbs is calculated.
The claim for bathroom light bulbs 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 RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Curtains
The landlord has claimed for damage to the curtains.
The landlord says that the curtains had a hole in them, and the tenant admits that there was a hole, no larger than a 50-cent coin that was accidentally caused during cooking.
The landlord claims a total amount of $334.00 (as above, combined with light bulbs) and advises that this is a quote. However, no details or supporting documentation has been provided to prove this amount. It is not clear whether this is for repair or replacement of the curtains. The property manager advises that this is all they were provided to advance the claim.
Although, it is likely that the tenant caused this damage carelessly, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence of the amount claimed and accordingly the claim for curtains is dismissed. Walls and ceilings
The landlord has claimed for damage to the walls and ceiling and has provided supporting photographs.
The tenant claims that any marks to the wall or ceilings were fair wear and tear and that it is unfair for her to have to cover any costs associated with repair.
The landlord has claimed for an amount of $1,417.95 however, once again, no evidence has been provided as to how this figure is calculated, or that it even represents the work required to be done. The property manager advises that this figure is all they were provided to advance the claim.
It may be that the tenant has carelessly caused some of the marks to the wall and ceilings during the tenancy, however, I find that the landlord has not provided sufficient (or any) evidence to support the amounts claimed from tenant.
The claim for damage to walls and ceilings is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties sought name suppression during the hearing. I have granted the tenant’s name suppression due to her being wholly successful in these proceedings. The landlord however has not advanced any arguments that show their interests outweigh the public interest and therefore I have not granted the landlords name suppression. R Harvey-Lane 16 December 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5010529 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Csi Property Management Limited as agent for Hai Phuong Tran and Lam My Pham must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, as calculated in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,040.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord and owner of the property attended the hearing, as well as the tenant.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond and the landlord has applied for compensation and a refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has specifically claimed for the cost of replacing bathroom light bulbs, curtain damage and wall and ceiling damage.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must replace standard light bulbs. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord has provided a photograph of the light bulbs that required replacing at the end of the tenancy. These are bathroom light bulbs in a heat lamp unit, and accordingly require heat lamp bulbs. In my view these are not standard lightbulbs and there is no obligation on the tenant to replace these at the end of the tenancy.
In any event, the amount claimed for lightbulbs is combined with the amount for “curtains” and totals $334.00. No evidence has been provided on what or how the amount for lightbulbs is calculated.
The claim for bathroom light bulbs 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 RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Curtains
The landlord has claimed for damage to the curtains.
The landlord says that the curtains had a hole in them, and the tenant admits that there was a hole, no larger than a 50-cent coin that was accidentally caused during cooking.
The landlord claims a total amount of $334.00 (as above, combined with light bulbs) and advises that this is a quote. However, no details or supporting documentation has been provided to prove this amount. It is not clear whether this is for repair or replacement of the curtains. The property manager advises that this is all they were provided to advance the claim.
Although, it is likely that the tenant caused this damage carelessly, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence of the amount claimed and accordingly the claim for curtains is dismissed. Walls and ceilings
The landlord has claimed for damage to the walls and ceiling and has provided supporting photographs.
The tenant claims that any marks to the wall or ceilings were fair wear and tear and that it is unfair for her to have to cover any costs associated with repair.
The landlord has claimed for an amount of $1,417.95 however, once again, no evidence has been provided as to how this figure is calculated, or that it even represents the work required to be done. The property manager advises that this figure is all they were provided to advance the claim.
It may be that the tenant has carelessly caused some of the marks to the wall and ceilings during the tenancy, however, I find that the landlord has not provided sufficient (or any) evidence to support the amounts claimed from tenant.
The claim for damage to walls and ceilings is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties sought name suppression during the hearing. I have granted the tenant’s name suppression due to her being wholly successful in these proceedings. The landlord however has not advanced any arguments that show their interests outweigh the public interest and therefore I have not granted the landlords name suppression. R Harvey-Lane 16 December 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 5010529 — Tenancy dispute at 2 Greenhaven Avenue, Papakura, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5010529 — Tenancy dispute at 2 Greenhaven Avenue, Papakura, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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