How much money was awarded in case 5044586?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5044586?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5044586?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11375187-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5044586?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5044586?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5044586?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11375187-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5, 74 Walmsley Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5044586 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5044586 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5044586. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$750.00		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond		$1,740.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,740.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $777.00 [The tenant/s]: $963.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The tenancy began on 25 January 2019 and ended on 2 October 2024 (5 years, 9 months).

The landlord claimed for compensation due to damage caused. The landlord has claimed insurance so was seeking that the tenant pay the insurance excess for five events.

The landlord produced a quote for repairs. That quote was for $12,006.46 and included replacing all the carpet, all the lino, replacing four doors and repairing and repainting walls in five rooms.

The exit inspection did not clearly show the damage. The landlord pointed out all the areas of damage by sharing her screen on the video call.

There were holes in some of the doors, a few dents and holes in the walls, damage to the lino and damage to the carpet.

There was no entry inspection report produced. Instead, the landlord produced a routine inspection report from 5 May 2023, which is the earliest report she could obtain.

The lack of an entry inspection report means that it is very difficult to determine whether the damage was caused by this tenant or was present at the beginning of the tenancy. I also note that this tenancy was almost six years long and so there was likely to have been significant wear and tear.

When the routine inspection report was considered, it showed that there were existing marks on the lino, holes in several doors and the wardrobe door was damaged. Also, it is difficult to see where the damage was due to there being furniture in the rooms.

The tenant said that the premises was not renovated when she moved in and some of the damage was already there. The marks on the lino were present and there was a hole in the laundry wall and bathroom where mice entered the premises.

Some blue tac was noted in the exit inspection and the tenant explained that that was the point where water entered the premises and even though the landlord sent someone to repair the leak it was not repaired. The tenant had placed the blue tac there to mark the hole.

This is a home built in the 1960s. The lino appears original and therefore would be around 65 years old. The tenant cannot be responsible for replacement of lino of that age, especially when some, if not all, the damage to it appears to have been present earlier in the tenancy.

There is no evidence of the age of the carpet. The join in the carpet had come apart and the carpet is threadbare. The landlord attributes this to the tenant having a dog but the state of the carpet could be due to its age.

The tenant admitted that she caused some of the damage and the dog had caused some damage to the carpet. It is impossible to determine what damage was caused by the tenant. I have decided to award the landlord $750.00 toward the damage to some of the carpet and some wall holes.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the landlord’s name.

The tenant has also had some success with opposing the application filed by the landlord. For that reason, I also suppress the tenant’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5044586. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$750.00		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond		$1,740.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,740.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $777.00 [The tenant/s]: $963.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The tenancy began on 25 January 2019 and ended on 2 October 2024 (5 years, 9 months).
The landlord claimed for compensation due to damage caused. The landlord has claimed insurance so was seeking that the tenant pay the insurance excess for five events.
The landlord produced a quote for repairs. That quote was for $12,006.46 and included replacing all the carpet, all the lino, replacing four doors and repairing and repainting walls in five rooms.
The exit inspection did not clearly show the damage. The landlord pointed out all the areas of damage by sharing her screen on the video call.
There were holes in some of the doors, a few dents and holes in the walls, damage to the lino and damage to the carpet.
There was no entry inspection report produced. Instead, the landlord produced a routine inspection report from 5 May 2023, which is the earliest report she could obtain.
The lack of an entry inspection report means that it is very difficult to determine whether the damage was caused by this tenant or was present at the beginning of the tenancy. I also note that this tenancy was almost six years long and so there was likely to have been significant wear and tear.
When the routine inspection report was considered, it showed that there were existing marks on the lino, holes in several doors and the wardrobe door was damaged. Also, it is difficult to see where the damage was due to there being furniture in the rooms.
The tenant said that the premises was not renovated when she moved in and some of the damage was already there. The marks on the lino were present and there was a hole in the laundry wall and bathroom where mice entered the premises.
Some blue tac was noted in the exit inspection and the tenant explained that that was the point where water entered the premises and even though the landlord sent someone to repair the leak it was not repaired. The tenant had placed the blue tac there to mark the hole.
This is a home built in the 1960s. The lino appears original and therefore would be around 65 years old. The tenant cannot be responsible for replacement of lino of that age, especially when some, if not all, the damage to it appears to have been present earlier in the tenancy.
There is no evidence of the age of the carpet. The join in the carpet had come apart and the carpet is threadbare. The landlord attributes this to the tenant having a dog but the state of the carpet could be due to its age.
The tenant admitted that she caused some of the damage and the dog had caused some damage to the carpet. It is impossible to determine what damage was caused by the tenant. I have decided to award the landlord $750.00 toward the damage to some of the carpet and some wall holes.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. For the same reason I have suppressed the landlord’s name.
The tenant has also had some success with opposing the application filed by the landlord. For that reason, I also suppress the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5044586 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 5, 74 Walmsley Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5044586 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 5, 74 Walmsley Road, Otahuhu, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions