What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5022948 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 5022948?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,430.93 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $762.86 awarded to landlord; Benchtop: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $138.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5022948?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5022948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11206046-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5022948 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 5022948?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $80.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,430.93 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $762.86 awarded to landlord; Benchtop: $264.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $138.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5022948?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5022948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11206046-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5022948 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5022948 — net $1,173.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26/9/24	$762.86	Rent arrears to 26/9/24
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Cleaning: of Patio	$80.50	Cleaning: of Patio
Rubbish removal: and weeding	$138.00	Rubbish removal: and weeding
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Compensation for carpet damage	$1,430.93	Compensation for carpet damage
Repairs: Benchtop	$264.50	Repairs: Benchtop
Net award	$1,173.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,173.79

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Karamjit Singh and Simran Kaur Pandher must pay [The landlord/s] $1,173.79 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed

Reasons

Both parties attend the hearing by video call.
This is a cross application.
The tenant seeks refund of the bond.
The landlord rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was periodic and commenced on 28 September 2020 and ended on 26 August 2024

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
Section 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined this application with these provisions in mind.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence.

RENT ARREARS

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $762.86. The rent arrears were not disputed, and I make an order for this amount in full.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. See Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8. Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. See Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. See Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.

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

The property was new at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord’s evidence was that the property was dirty throughout, that the carpets were dirty and stained, that surfaces and walls were dirty and marked and that there was rubbish that required removal. The landlord says there was mould on many surfaces around the premises.
In addition, they say one curtain had a hard area of dirt that could not be removed so the cleaners hemmed it. This service was provided as part of the cleaning invoice.
Rubbish removal and general cleaning was therefore required.
The landlord provided an outgoing inspection report of details areas of dirt and grime however they did not include any wide shot photographs of the premises.
The tenants say they did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant’s provided wide shot photographs they took at the end of the tenancy.
I have reviewed the photographs provided and consider the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy however I consider the tenants were close to doing so in the cleaning they did undertake. I consider the tenants should have completed a final wipe down of surfaces to remove grime, dirt and marks.
The landlord claimed $247.25 for cleaning costs and provided an invoice in support of the claim.
I consider the tenants should pay $150.00 of this to reflect the further cleaning they should have undertaken.
The landlord also claims that the concrete patio required cleaning. Photographs were provided and there were paint marks on the patio. An invoice was provided from a Handyman service which does not itemise the amounts invoiced for specific tasks. The handyman hourly rate was $70 + GST and I allow one hour of his invoiced time for the water blasting of the patio. The amount ordered is $80.50. Rubbish removal, weeding and green waste removal
The landlord claimed $138.00 for weeding and rubbish removal.
An invoice was provided in support of the claim and photographs were provided in the outgoing inspection report.
The tenants accept that they did not remove the rubbish. They say they had arranged for a neighbour to put the rubbish bins out, but the neighbour must not have done this. The tenants say they attended to the weeding during the tenancy.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that rubbish removal, some weeding and green waste removal was required and make an order for the full amount claimed of $138.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.

DAMAGE CLAIMS

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 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.
The landlord’s insurance excess of $1,250.00 and four-weeks rent is $2,800.00.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpet was damaged with numerous and extensive stains. i. The tenant says they did their best to clean the carpets by having them professionally cleaned. ii. Much of the damage appeared to be from children’s painting. I consider the damage most likely to have been by the tenant’s careless actions. iii. The carpet was damaged in three separate rooms. The landlord claims three excess amounts of $750 so a total amount of $2,250.00 in respect of damage to the carpet. iv. The landlord provided correspondence between the property manager and the insurance company that confirms that the claim was for cleaning costs of $200 and a carpet replacement quote of $2,861.86. v. I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. vi. The carpet was four years old. The Inland Revenue IRD265 General depreciation rates states that residential carpet has an approximate life span of eight years. The carpet was therefore halfway through its life span. In considering the full replacement cost of the carpets I allow for depreciation of 50% and award compensation of $1,430.93 for the carpet damage and $200.00 for the cleaning costs. vii. The amount ordered does not exceed the statutory limit. b. The bench top was burnt and chipped. i. The landlord claimed $264.50 for the repair. ii. The landlord said the damage was a burn mark (close to the hob) and chips from careless use. iii. The tenant says the damage is effectively wear and tear and should have been treated as maintenance that the landlord should pay for. I consider this likely to be careless damage and award the full amount for the repair.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

OTHER CLAIMS

Tile floor border

The landlord says the tile floor border was damaged by the tenant.
The landlord provided an inspection report and photographs as evidence of the damage.
The tenant said the damage to the tile floor was present at the commencement of the tenancy.
This premises was new at the commencement of the tenancy, so I consider it unlikely that damage was present at this time. However, I am not satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The claim to repair the tile border is dismissed. Bedroom ceiling
The landlord says the bedroom ceiling was damage by the tenant painting it with the incorrect paint.
The tenant says the ceiling was repaired by the landlord’s contractor when we attended and repainted around the premises and the tenant has already paid the contractor to repair the damage. The tenant had provided a promise to tell the truth.
The landlord insists the contractor did not attend to the various smaller areas of damage throughout the house.
The landlord provided the contractor’s invoice. The descriptions states: Have Recently visited the rental property of 3/15 Dover road. Have found 2 large holes in the kitchen/garage hall wall, this will need a half of the wall replaced and repaint the whole wall. There’s a large hole in the garage wall to be patched and painted. Throughout the house, there’s over 50 wall and skirting scuffs, dents and gauges that need to be filled, sanded and painted.
The invoice description however does not confirm what specific tasks were undertaken.
The tenant was able to provide specific details from her conversation with the contractor when he attended at the home and painted the ceiling.
I therefore consider it likely that the contractor did touch up the ceiling and the tenant’s paid for this repair and the contractor has used the incorrect paint. I do not consider the tenant should be liable for the repair cost twice. The claim is dismissed.

BOND

The bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amounts ordered. TENANT’S CLAIMS
The tenants filed an application with the Tribunal for a refund of the bond and to dispute the landlord’s claims for compensation.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed for the reasons set out above.

FILING FEE

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.00.

SUPPRESSION

The landlord sought suppression and as the application is substantially successful, I have made an order accordingly.
The tenant sought name suppression however as they have been largely the unsuccessful party, I do not order name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5022948 — net $1,173.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26/9/24	$762.86	Rent arrears to 26/9/24
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Cleaning	$150.00	Cleaning
Cleaning: of Patio	$80.50	Cleaning: of Patio
Rubbish removal: and weeding	$138.00	Rubbish removal: and weeding
Carpet Cleaning	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning
Compensation for carpet damage	$1,430.93	Compensation for carpet damage
Repairs: Benchtop	$264.50	Repairs: Benchtop
Net award	$1,173.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,173.79

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Karamjit Singh and Simran Kaur Pandher must pay [The landlord/s] $1,173.79 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
All other claims are dismissed

Reasons

Both parties attend the hearing by video call.
This is a cross application.
The tenant seeks refund of the bond.
The landlord rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was periodic and commenced on 28 September 2020 and ended on 26 August 2024

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
Section 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined this application with these provisions in mind.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence.

RENT ARREARS

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $762.86. The rent arrears were not disputed, and I make an order for this amount in full.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The RTA does not require the premises to be returned in an immaculate condition, only in a reasonably clean and tidy state. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean.
Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. See Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8. Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009. Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. See Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998. Reasonably clean is not necessarily to the standard a landlord considers acceptable for a new tenant. See Ace Property Management Ltd v Owens DC Wellington CIV -2008-1441, 17 December 2008
The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particular with paint work).
If the landlord is seeking to recover costs for cleaning and rubbish removal, it is the landlord who must prove that the tenant has breached their obligations under the RTA with how the premises were returned at the end of the tenancy. If the landlord does not establish a breach to the balance of probability, then their claim will be dismissed.

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

The property was new at the commencement of the tenancy.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord’s evidence was that the property was dirty throughout, that the carpets were dirty and stained, that surfaces and walls were dirty and marked and that there was rubbish that required removal. The landlord says there was mould on many surfaces around the premises.
In addition, they say one curtain had a hard area of dirt that could not be removed so the cleaners hemmed it. This service was provided as part of the cleaning invoice.
Rubbish removal and general cleaning was therefore required.
The landlord provided an outgoing inspection report of details areas of dirt and grime however they did not include any wide shot photographs of the premises.
The tenants say they did leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant’s provided wide shot photographs they took at the end of the tenancy.
I have reviewed the photographs provided and consider the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy however I consider the tenants were close to doing so in the cleaning they did undertake. I consider the tenants should have completed a final wipe down of surfaces to remove grime, dirt and marks.
The landlord claimed $247.25 for cleaning costs and provided an invoice in support of the claim.
I consider the tenants should pay $150.00 of this to reflect the further cleaning they should have undertaken.
The landlord also claims that the concrete patio required cleaning. Photographs were provided and there were paint marks on the patio. An invoice was provided from a Handyman service which does not itemise the amounts invoiced for specific tasks. The handyman hourly rate was $70 + GST and I allow one hour of his invoiced time for the water blasting of the patio. The amount ordered is $80.50. Rubbish removal, weeding and green waste removal
The landlord claimed $138.00 for weeding and rubbish removal.
An invoice was provided in support of the claim and photographs were provided in the outgoing inspection report.
The tenants accept that they did not remove the rubbish. They say they had arranged for a neighbour to put the rubbish bins out, but the neighbour must not have done this. The tenants say they attended to the weeding during the tenancy.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that rubbish removal, some weeding and green waste removal was required and make an order for the full amount claimed of $138.00.
The amounts ordered are proved.

DAMAGE CLAIMS

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 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.
The landlord’s insurance excess of $1,250.00 and four-weeks rent is $2,800.00.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpet was damaged with numerous and extensive stains. i. The tenant says they did their best to clean the carpets by having them professionally cleaned. ii. Much of the damage appeared to be from children’s painting. I consider the damage most likely to have been by the tenant’s careless actions. iii. The carpet was damaged in three separate rooms. The landlord claims three excess amounts of $750 so a total amount of $2,250.00 in respect of damage to the carpet. iv. The landlord provided correspondence between the property manager and the insurance company that confirms that the claim was for cleaning costs of $200 and a carpet replacement quote of $2,861.86. v. I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. vi. The carpet was four years old. The Inland Revenue IRD265 General depreciation rates states that residential carpet has an approximate life span of eight years. The carpet was therefore halfway through its life span. In considering the full replacement cost of the carpets I allow for depreciation of 50% and award compensation of $1,430.93 for the carpet damage and $200.00 for the cleaning costs. vii. The amount ordered does not exceed the statutory limit. b. The bench top was burnt and chipped. i. The landlord claimed $264.50 for the repair. ii. The landlord said the damage was a burn mark (close to the hob) and chips from careless use. iii. The tenant says the damage is effectively wear and tear and should have been treated as maintenance that the landlord should pay for. I consider this likely to be careless damage and award the full amount for the repair.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.

OTHER CLAIMS

Tile floor border

The landlord says the tile floor border was damaged by the tenant.
The landlord provided an inspection report and photographs as evidence of the damage.
The tenant said the damage to the tile floor was present at the commencement of the tenancy.
This premises was new at the commencement of the tenancy, so I consider it unlikely that damage was present at this time. However, I am not satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The claim to repair the tile border is dismissed. Bedroom ceiling
The landlord says the bedroom ceiling was damage by the tenant painting it with the incorrect paint.
The tenant says the ceiling was repaired by the landlord’s contractor when we attended and repainted around the premises and the tenant has already paid the contractor to repair the damage. The tenant had provided a promise to tell the truth.
The landlord insists the contractor did not attend to the various smaller areas of damage throughout the house.
The landlord provided the contractor’s invoice. The descriptions states: Have Recently visited the rental property of 3/15 Dover road. Have found 2 large holes in the kitchen/garage hall wall, this will need a half of the wall replaced and repaint the whole wall. There’s a large hole in the garage wall to be patched and painted. Throughout the house, there’s over 50 wall and skirting scuffs, dents and gauges that need to be filled, sanded and painted.
The invoice description however does not confirm what specific tasks were undertaken.
The tenant was able to provide specific details from her conversation with the contractor when he attended at the home and painted the ceiling.
I therefore consider it likely that the contractor did touch up the ceiling and the tenant’s paid for this repair and the contractor has used the incorrect paint. I do not consider the tenant should be liable for the repair cost twice. The claim is dismissed.

BOND

The bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amounts ordered. TENANT’S CLAIMS
The tenants filed an application with the Tribunal for a refund of the bond and to dispute the landlord’s claims for compensation.
The tenant’s claim is dismissed for the reasons set out above.

FILING FEE

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.00.

SUPPRESSION

The landlord sought suppression and as the application is substantially successful, I have made an order accordingly.
The tenant sought name suppression however as they have been largely the unsuccessful party, I do not order name suppression.

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

RENT ARREARS

How much is owed for rent arrears?

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

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

DAMAGE CLAIMS

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

OTHER CLAIMS

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS

RENT ARREARS

How much is owed for rent arrears?

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

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

DAMAGE CLAIMS

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

OTHER CLAIMS

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions