How much money was awarded in case 5061714?

Carpet Treatment And Underlay One Be…: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door: $872.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5061714?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5061714?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11418483-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5061714?

Carpet Treatment And Underlay One Be…: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door: $872.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5061714?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5061714?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11418483-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5061714 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5061714 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 5061714 — net $1,899.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet treatment and underlay one bedroom	$1,000.00	Carpet treatment and underlay one bedroom
Repairs: Bedroom door	$872.85	Repairs: Bedroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,899.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,899.85

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 tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,899.85, calculated as shown in table below.

The tenant must pay the debt in order 2 at the rate of $40.00 per fortnight.

The first payment must be made on Wednesday 5 March 2025 and payments must continue every second Wednesday until the debt is paid in full.

If the tenant fails to make any payment within 2 working days of the due date, the balance of the debt owing will be payable immediately and can be enforced through the District Court.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held by video/telephone.

The landlord has applied for compensation for costs following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant disagrees with some of the claims.

This was a four-and-a-half-year tenancy, and all went well. Both parties are disappointed that these issues have arisen.

What is the law relating to claims for damage to tenancy premises?

If making a claim for damage, a landlord must prove that any damage happened during this 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 the property.

A tenant is liable for any intentional or careless damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

When working out compensation, the landlord should be returned as nearly as possible to the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred and should not be better or worse off. This often means that the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The maximum that can be awarded is the amount of the insurance excess if there is a policy that would cover the damage (whether or not the landlord makes a claim).

My decisions are:- a. Dishwasher racks: After consideration of all evidence after the hearing, including the several negative reviews of this model dishwasher, I accept the tenant’s evidence that the dishwasher had to be used on “heavy cycle” for it to wash dishes properly. In light of this, I accept that she has shown that the damage to the racks was not careless but the result of normal use (cutlery basket broken at the base, other racks eroded plastic and rusty). This claim is dismissed. b. Cat urine smell in one bedroom and laundry: I accept the landlord’s evidence from a professional carpet cleaning company that the carpet in one bedroom was damaged by cat urine. It is not certain that this occurred during the tenancy but the landlord’s oral evidence that the carpet was new or near new at the start of the tenancy and the fact that the tenant did have a cat means that it is more probable than not that the damage occurred during this tenancy. “More probable than not” is the standard of proof required in the Tribunal. I accept the tenant’s oral evidence that neither she nor the landlord noticed a smell during the tenancy and agree that it is possible that the use of a Rug Doctor may have caused an old stain to resurface. On balance, the landlord’s claim is proven. I award the amount of the insurance excess which is $1,000.00. I make no award for the laundry as no work has been done and the landlord accepts that the lino in this room is old so may be due for replacement anyway. c. Damage to door veneer caused while moving out: the tenant accepts that one internal door was damaged while moving out and notes that she offered to pay for this during the exit inspection. The landlord now claims compensation. I award the quoted cost to replace, resurface and rehang the rimu veneer door.

The landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, so I award the filing fee.

The parties agreed today on a payment plan for the amount owing.

I order suppression of both names. The landlord has been mostly successful so is entitled to this. The tenant disclosed personal security concerns and, in light of this and my findings on the claims, the balance falls in favour of suppression of her name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5061714 — net $1,899.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet treatment and underlay one bedroom	$1,000.00	Carpet treatment and underlay one bedroom
Repairs: Bedroom door	$872.85	Repairs: Bedroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,899.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,899.85

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 tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,899.85, calculated as shown in table below.
The tenant must pay the debt in order 2 at the rate of $40.00 per fortnight.
The first payment must be made on Wednesday 5 March 2025 and payments must continue every second Wednesday until the debt is paid in full.
If the tenant fails to make any payment within 2 working days of the due date, the balance of the debt owing will be payable immediately and can be enforced through the District Court.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held by video/telephone.
The landlord has applied for compensation for costs following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disagrees with some of the claims.
This was a four-and-a-half-year tenancy, and all went well. Both parties are disappointed that these issues have arisen.

What is the law relating to claims for damage to tenancy premises?

If making a claim for damage, a landlord must prove that any damage happened during this 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 the property.
A tenant is liable for any intentional or careless damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
When working out compensation, the landlord should be returned as nearly as possible to the position they would have been in had the damage not occurred and should not be better or worse off. This often means that the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The maximum that can be awarded is the amount of the insurance excess if there is a policy that would cover the damage (whether or not the landlord makes a claim).
My decisions are:- a. Dishwasher racks: After consideration of all evidence after the hearing, including the several negative reviews of this model dishwasher, I accept the tenant’s evidence that the dishwasher had to be used on “heavy cycle” for it to wash dishes properly. In light of this, I accept that she has shown that the damage to the racks was not careless but the result of normal use (cutlery basket broken at the base, other racks eroded plastic and rusty). This claim is dismissed. b. Cat urine smell in one bedroom and laundry: I accept the landlord’s evidence from a professional carpet cleaning company that the carpet in one bedroom was damaged by cat urine. It is not certain that this occurred during the tenancy but the landlord’s oral evidence that the carpet was new or near new at the start of the tenancy and the fact that the tenant did have a cat means that it is more probable than not that the damage occurred during this tenancy. “More probable than not” is the standard of proof required in the Tribunal. I accept the tenant’s oral evidence that neither she nor the landlord noticed a smell during the tenancy and agree that it is possible that the use of a Rug Doctor may have caused an old stain to resurface. On balance, the landlord’s claim is proven. I award the amount of the insurance excess which is $1,000.00. I make no award for the laundry as no work has been done and the landlord accepts that the lino in this room is old so may be due for replacement anyway. c. Damage to door veneer caused while moving out: the tenant accepts that one internal door was damaged while moving out and notes that she offered to pay for this during the exit inspection. The landlord now claims compensation. I award the quoted cost to replace, resurface and rehang the rimu veneer door.
The landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, so I award the filing fee.
The parties agreed today on a payment plan for the amount owing.
I order suppression of both names. The landlord has been mostly successful so is entitled to this. The tenant disclosed personal security concerns and, in light of this and my findings on the claims, the balance falls in favour of suppression of her name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5061714 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5061714 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What is the law relating to claims for damage to tenancy premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

What is the law relating to claims for damage to tenancy premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions