What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065268 about?

The tribunal order states: Applications for suppression have been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5065268?

Kitchen Vinyl: $1,070.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Quiet Enjoyment - Letter Box And Bin…: $800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065268?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11230495-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065268 about?

The tribunal order states: Applications for suppression have been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5065268?

Kitchen Vinyl: $1,070.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Quiet Enjoyment - Letter Box And Bin…: $800.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065268?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065268?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11230495-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5065268 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5065268 — net $470.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Damage to ensuite door and frame	$200.00		Damage to ensuite door and frame
Damage to vinyl	$1,070.00		Damage to vinyl
Quiet enjoyment - letter box and bins		$800.00	Quiet enjoyment - letter box and bins
Total award	$1,270.00	$800.00
Net award	$470.00
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$470.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5065268 — net $470.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Damage to ensuite door and frame	$200.00		Damage to ensuite door and frame
Damage to vinyl	$1,070.00		Damage to vinyl
Quiet enjoyment - letter box and bins		$800.00	Quiet enjoyment - letter box and bins
Total award	$1,270.00	$800.00
Net award	$470.00
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$470.00

Order

Applications for suppression have been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the tenant’s and the landlord’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $770.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $770.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,590.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [Mr B] and [Ms A] represented the landlord.
The tenant had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 13 March 2023. The tenancy ended on 13 March 2024, and the tenant applied for payment of the bond, and for compensation for the landlord giving an improper notice to end the tenancy and for breach of his right to quiet enjoyment.
The landlord cross applied for compensation for: • Repairing the ensuite door and frame: $437.00 • Replacing vinyl planks in kitchen: $1,070.00 • Replacing the hall carpet: $1,595.00 • Replacing the cooktop: $1,380.00 • Repairing blinds: $212.00 • Repairing the law and tidying the gardens: $391.00 • Cleaning the windows: $189.75 The landlord’s claims for damage and cleaning
To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
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: section 49B(3)(a)of the Act. The landlord’s insurance excess is $2,500.00. Four weeks rent is $2,360.00.
The tenant accepts that he is liable for the damage to the door and frame (which occurred when he removed a latch he had installed) but disputes the amount claimed. He disputes the other claims. Door and frame
As mentioned, the tenant accepts that he caused the damage to the door ad frame but does not accept the amount claimed to repair it.
The amount claimed to repair the door and frame is based on a quote and neither [Mr B] nor [Ms A] were able to say whether the work had been done by the landlord. In addition, the quote simply states that it is a “quote for repair and fix the painting damage for the house”. It is therefore unclear whether the quote includes other work for which the tenant is not liable.
Doing the best I can on the evidence before me, including the extent of the damage (which is minor) as shown in the photographs, I consider the sum of $200.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage. Vinyl
There is no dispute that the vinyl planking has been damaged by scrapes/gouges, possibly by an item being dragged across the floor. The landlord provided a quote to replace the six damaged planks at a total cost of $1,070.00.
The tenant disputes causing the damage to the vinyl. He said that the damage was not there at the end of the tenancy and could have been caused by painting contractors or one of the owners who moved into the premises after the tenancy ended. He said that the painter was at the premises on 14 March (the day after the tenancy ended) and he provided a photograph taken at 6pm on 15 March which showed what appeared to be contractor’s tools on the kitchen floor.
[Mr B] and [Ms A] said that the painter had only visited the premises on 14 March to complete a quote for the work. He did not complete any work. They also point to the end of tenancy inspection report. The report records that the inspection was completed on 14 March and it records the damage to the vinyl. Thus, the evidence establishes that the damage was there before 15 March when the tenant saw the tools on the floor. I also accept [Ms A] and [Mr B’s] evidence that the property was not handed back to the owner until after the end of tenancy inspection was completed. It is therefore unlikely that the owner caused the damage that had been noted on 14 March, the day after the tenancy ended.
I am therefore satisfied that it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for it.
In the circumstances I consider the amount on the quote to replace the six damaged planks is reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage. Carpet
The damage to the hall carpet is said to be a small blackspot and a brown coloured stain by the wall. The landlord claims the cost, based on a quote, to replace the carpet.
The tenant denies causing the stains and they are not noted in the end of tenancy inspection report. Moreover, there is no evidence to support whether the stains/marks could be removed by professional cleaning.
The claim for damage to the carpet is therefore dismissed. Cook top
The damage to the cook top is said to be marks (possibly caused by the contents of pots boiling over) to two elements which could not be removed by cleaning. The landlord claims the cost (again based on a quote) to replace the hobs.
The tenant denies causing the damage or that it was there at the end of the tenancy.
The marks were not noted in the end of tenancy report which records that the appliances (including the hob) were “clean”, “undamaged” and “working”. The landlord (owner) discovered the marks and provided photographs which were said to have been taken on 15 March. The tenant disputes the date the photographs were taken. He said that he was not told of the issue until mid- April.
I am not satisfied that the landlord has established to the standard required, that is on the balance of probabilities (or ‘more likely than not’), that the damage occurred during the tenancy. The landlord did not attend the hearing to have his evidence tested as to the date the photographs were taken by him. The property manager who completed the end of tenancy inspection also did not attend.
The claim for damage to the cooktop is therefore dismissed. Blinds
The claim for damage to the venetian blinds is dismissed for similar reasons, that is, I am not satisfied that the landlord has established that it is more likely than not that the damage occurred during the tenancy. There is no mention of the damage in the end of tenancy report and the landlord did not attend the hearing to give evidence to support his claim that the damage did occur before the tenancy ended. Lawns and gardens
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a large area of the lawn and did not leave the gardens reasonably tidy. Again, photographs said to be taken by the landlord on 15 March were provided in support. The landlord claims the sum of $391.00 to weed the gardens and repair the lawn. The amount claimed is based on a quote for the work dated 21 November 2024.
This claim is also dismissed. I accept the tenant’s evidence that the photograph of the lawn damage provided by the landlord is of the lawn area which is the responsibility of the neighbouring unit. There is nothing in the pre tenancy report about any damage to the lawn or that the gardens required tidying. There are approximately 10 photographs taken by the property manager of the lawns at the end of tenancy inspection which are attached to the report and none of these photographs show the damage claimed. The photographs of the gardens also establish that they were tidy on 14 March.
Moreover, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to establish the costs claimed. As mentioned, the quote provided is dated 21 November, some eight months after the tenancy ended, and there is no evidence to support when or whether the work has been done and, if so, at what cost. Window cleaning
The landlord claims that the inside of the windows at the premises were not left reasonably clean and claims the sum of $189.75 based on a quote dated 12 November 2024.
This claim is dismissed because there is no mention in the end of tenancy report of the requirement to clean the windows and the landlord did not attend to dispute the tenant’s evidence that they were left reasonably clean. The landlord has also not provided sufficient evidence to support the actual costs incurred, if any, to clean the windows at the end of the tenancy. Again, the amount claimed is simply based on a quote dated some eight months after the tenancy ended. The tenant’s claims Inadequate notice
The tenancy was for a one-year fixed term ending on 13 March 2024. Before the expiry of the term the parties agreed that the tenancy would become a periodic tenancy after 13 March. However, the landlord then told the property manager that they would prefer another fixed term tenancy rather than a periodic one. Therefore, on 30 January the property manager emailed the tenant noting that they had agreed to a periodic tenancy but asking whether he would agree to a 12-month term. On 1 February, the tenant replied saying that he did not want another fixed term. Within minutes of that email, the tenant sent another stating that, if the owner is looking for a 12-month term, then he is “happy to move out once my fixed term is finished.” Then, on 2 February, the tenant gave 28 days’ notice of his intention to end the tenancy.
I find that the landlord did not give the tenant notice to end the tenancy as claimed by the tenant. The 30 January email was simply asking the tenant whether he would consider another fixed term rather than a periodic tenancy. After the tenant said that he did not want to have another fixed term, there was no further correspondence from the landlord about the issue. As mentioned, the tenant then gave 28 days’ notice to end the tenant. Quiet enjoyment/harassment
Section 38(1) of the Act provides that a tenant is entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or the landlord’s agent. In addition, a landlord must not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises: section 38(2) of the Act. Where the landlord is in breach of these obligations, the tenant may be entitled to compensation.
The tenant claims that the landlord breached his right to quiet enjoyment by harassing him to leave the tenancy when it expired. I do not agree. As mentioned above the landlord did not force or harass the tenant to leave. The decision to leave was entirely his.
The tenant also claims that the previous property manager (Mark) was racist and rude to him. However, there is insufficient evidence of either. This claim is dismissed.
Finally, the tenant claims that his right to quiet enjoyment was affected by having to share a letter box and the Council rubbish bins with his neighbour.
[Ms A] and [Mr B] did not dispute that there was only one letter box and one set of bins for both properties. They also accept that the tenant asked them early on in the tenancy if the situation could be rectified but they said that the landlord was not prepared to consider it until the tenancy came up for renewal and they could then factor the cost into the rent. I consider the refusal to be unreasonable. The tenant was entitled to his own letter box and entitled to his own set of rubbish bins.
I find that the landlord has caused or permitted the interference with the tenant’s reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in the use of the premises by requiring him to share a letter box and rubbish bins with the neighbour.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that having to share a letter box and, in particular, the rubbish bins, was inconvenient and caused friction and arguments between him and his neighbour. In the circumstances I consider $800.00 reasonable to compensate the tenant for the breach of his right to quiet enjoyment. Tribunal application fee
Both parties have been partially successful in their respective claims. I therefore make no award for payment of the Tribunal application fee paid by each. Suppression
Both parties applied in their applications for a suppression order.
Section 95A(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply). Section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest, order that the name and identifying details of that party be suppressed.
Both parties have had some success in their claims but neither have been wholly or substantially successful. However, I consider that this is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion in favour of both parties and therefore order suppression of both the tenant’s and the landlord’s name and identifying details. Given the circumstances, in particular the partial success by both, I do not consider there is any public interest in their names being published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065268 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065268 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions