What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5057048 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 5057048?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5057048?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5057048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11106043-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5057048 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 5057048?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $850.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5057048?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5057048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11106043-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

48A Hokio Beach Road, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5057048 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5057048 — net $2,127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair and painting of damaged walls and ceilings	$850.00	Repair and painting of damaged walls and ceilings
Damaged benchtop insurance excess	$1,250.00	Damaged benchtop insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,127.00
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,127.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenants are to pay $2127.00 to Team Group Rentals T/A Harcourts as agent for Simon Barratt. This amount will come from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Team Group Rentals Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Simon Barratt: $2127.00 [The tenant/s]: $593.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. One tenant attended the hearing and she advised that she had the authority to represent all the tenants at today’s hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants claim payment of the entire bond.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims $125.00 as the invoiced cost of cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy.
I am not allowing this cost because the tenants are only required to leave premises reasonably clean, not perfectly clean and ready for the next tenant.
The photographs provided to support this part of the landlord’s claim do not indicate that the house was not left reasonably clean.
I note that the cleaning invoice included cleaning the ceilings. This was a cost incorporated into the painter’s cost for remedying the ceilings which had a sticky residue on them – an issue addressed below.

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.
The photographs show that the ceilings in 2 bedrooms, the lounge and the kitchen dining area had been damaged – there was a sticky residue on them that could not be removed merely by cleaning.
The photographs also show that 2 walls in bedroom 3 had been damaged carelessly – a paint chip caused when moving the furniture and biro marks.
Two walls in bedroom 4 had also been damaged carelessly – the photographs show significant black marks and paint chipping.
Again, one wall in the ensuite shows a wall which had a large paint chip which I regard as careless damage.
Further to this, the hallway walls had all been cleaned with a harsh scouring product which caused damage to the paintwork – again I consider this to be careless damage.
I am dismissing that part of this claim which includes painting over scuff marks because I accept that this is fair wear and tear.
There are no photographs of any other damage to walls in the premises.
The repair and painting invoice totals $1349.93. The invoice notes that 80% of the walls had to be repainted.
I am only allowing the cost of remedying the proven careless damage to the walls and ceilings. This damage was not to 80% of the walls and on the evidence above I am assessing the cost of repairing and painting that damage which was careless as being $850.00.
The tenants are required to pay this amount.
The benchtop was also damaged during this tenancy. There is a chip and two burn marks which I accept was careless damage.
The tenants are therefore required to pay the insurance excess for the replacement of the two kitchen benches which was proven as being $1250.00. Filing fee reimbursement
The tenants are required to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was substantially successful in the claim against them.
The tenants are required to bear their own cost of filing because they were largely unsuccessful in their claim. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has not applied for suppression of their name.
The tenants have applied.
Pursuant to the provisions of s95A(1) I am allowing suppression of the tenants name. This is largely because in almost every respect these have been good tenants and I consider that the opportunity to obtain another rental should not be impacted by this claim and the publishing of their names. The impact of publishing their names by far outweighs the gravity of this claim against them.
I also note that the landlord supported the suppression of the tenants’ names. C ter Haar 20 November 2024

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5057048 — net $2,127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repair and painting of damaged walls and ceilings	$850.00	Repair and painting of damaged walls and ceilings
Damaged benchtop insurance excess	$1,250.00	Damaged benchtop insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,127.00
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,127.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenants are to pay $2127.00 to Team Group Rentals T/A Harcourts as agent for Simon Barratt. This amount will come from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Team Group Rentals Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Simon Barratt: $2127.00 [The tenant/s]: $593.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. One tenant attended the hearing and she advised that she had the authority to represent all the tenants at today’s hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants claim payment of the entire bond.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord claims $125.00 as the invoiced cost of cleaning the premises at the end of the tenancy.
I am not allowing this cost because the tenants are only required to leave premises reasonably clean, not perfectly clean and ready for the next tenant.
The photographs provided to support this part of the landlord’s claim do not indicate that the house was not left reasonably clean.
I note that the cleaning invoice included cleaning the ceilings. This was a cost incorporated into the painter’s cost for remedying the ceilings which had a sticky residue on them – an issue addressed below.

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.
The photographs show that the ceilings in 2 bedrooms, the lounge and the kitchen dining area had been damaged – there was a sticky residue on them that could not be removed merely by cleaning.
The photographs also show that 2 walls in bedroom 3 had been damaged carelessly – a paint chip caused when moving the furniture and biro marks.
Two walls in bedroom 4 had also been damaged carelessly – the photographs show significant black marks and paint chipping.
Again, one wall in the ensuite shows a wall which had a large paint chip which I regard as careless damage.
Further to this, the hallway walls had all been cleaned with a harsh scouring product which caused damage to the paintwork – again I consider this to be careless damage.
I am dismissing that part of this claim which includes painting over scuff marks because I accept that this is fair wear and tear.
There are no photographs of any other damage to walls in the premises.
The repair and painting invoice totals $1349.93. The invoice notes that 80% of the walls had to be repainted.
I am only allowing the cost of remedying the proven careless damage to the walls and ceilings. This damage was not to 80% of the walls and on the evidence above I am assessing the cost of repairing and painting that damage which was careless as being $850.00.
The tenants are required to pay this amount.
The benchtop was also damaged during this tenancy. There is a chip and two burn marks which I accept was careless damage.
The tenants are therefore required to pay the insurance excess for the replacement of the two kitchen benches which was proven as being $1250.00. Filing fee reimbursement
The tenants are required to reimburse the filing fee to the landlord because the landlord was substantially successful in the claim against them.
The tenants are required to bear their own cost of filing because they were largely unsuccessful in their claim. Suppression of names
Section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that: (1) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. (2) An order may be subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate. (3) If a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings applies for an order that their name or identifying particulars not be published, the Tribunal must make the order unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest, or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has not applied for suppression of their name.
The tenants have applied.
Pursuant to the provisions of s95A(1) I am allowing suppression of the tenants name. This is largely because in almost every respect these have been good tenants and I consider that the opportunity to obtain another rental should not be impacted by this claim and the publishing of their names. The impact of publishing their names by far outweighs the gravity of this claim against them.
I also note that the landlord supported the suppression of the tenants’ names. C ter Haar 20 November 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 5057048 — Property damage at 48A Hokio Beach Road, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5057048 — Property damage at 48A Hokio Beach Road, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants 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

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants 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