How much money was awarded in case 5169154?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $475.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $320.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5169154?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5169154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11857330-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5169154?

Cleaning: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $475.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $320.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5169154?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5169154?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11857330-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 2, 12 Killarney Road, Frankton, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5169154 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5169154 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5169154 — net $933.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Rent arrears to 19 January 2025	$475.71	By consent: Rent arrears to 19 January 2025
By consent: Carpet Cleaning	$138.00	By consent: Carpet Cleaning
By consent: Rubbish removal and weeding	$320.00	By consent: Rubbish removal and weeding
Net award	$933.71
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$933.71

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

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $933.71 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $933.71 [The tenant/s]: $2,066.29

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant does not dispute the landlord’s claim for rent arrears up to 19 January 2025 for $475.71. The tenant also does not dispute the landlord’s claim for compensation for the following items: a. Carpet cleaning:$138.00 b. Rubbish removal and weeding:$320.00

I grant the landlord’s claim for rent arrears and compensation for the above items by consent.

The issue in dispute is the landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the front door. The landlord claims the tenant or someone at the address with the tenant’s permission, damaged the front door during the tenancy. The landlord has filed a claim with their insurer, which is awaiting determination. The landlord’s insurance excess is $1,150.00. The actual replacement cost for the door has been quoted at $1,897.51.

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo 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 of 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.

I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

DAMAGE TO THE FRONT DOOR

The law

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. 1

The landlord claims the front door was scratched during the tenancy. The landlord claims the scratch was most likely caused by movers the tenant hired towards the end of the tenancy.

The tenant claims the scratch was not caused by them or the movers during the tenancy. The tenant claims the scratch occurred after the tenancy ended and is unsure of the cause.

The issue I must determine is whether the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenant or someone at the address with the tenant’s permission, such as the movers, scratched the front door during the tenancy. Evidence and submissions of the parties Landlord

The tenancy began on 29 December 2022 and ended on 19 January 2025.

The landlord gave evidence that they completed a final inspection on 21 January 2025. The landlord sent the tenant an email on this date stating: Hi Damien & Tahlia I hope you are both well. I’ve recently completed the final bond inspection and noticed a few things that require attention. -Carpet stains to the downstairs and upstairs bedroom. -Stain to the inside of the bathroom sink. -Rubbish left behind in the council bins. -Some weeds need to be removed. -Kitchen cupboard needs further cleaning. -4475.71 of rent left owing. ... 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.

The landlord accepts that they did not notice the scratch to the front door on 21 January 2025. The landlord gave evidence that this was most likely due to an oversight but submits that the scratch was present on 21 January 2025.

On 24 January 2025, the landlord returned to the address to do a follow up inspection. The landlord was accompanied by the developer for the property who was able to buff out the stain in the bathroom sink. The landlord gave evidence that it was on this date that they noticed a scratch on the outside of the front door. An email was sent to the tenant stating: Hi Damien Thanks for your co-operation. I met with the developer this morning and we were able to get the marks off the vanity basin, so that’s now all sorted. We did notice a medium sized scrape to the front door. See photos attached. It seems like the damage occurred while moving furniture of some sort and due to the door material and the depth of the scrape it can’t just be painted over. The owner is wanting this to be replaced and has provided me with the cost of the door which is $1650 + GST. This covers the door and installation. Let me know how you are wanting to proceed with this...

The landlord submitted a photograph of the scratch. It appears to be a single, medium sized scratch. The landlord gave evidence that it is quite deep, but this cannot be properly seen in the photographs.

The landlord submits it is unlikely that anyone visited the address between 21 January 2025 and 24 January 2025. The landlord submits it is unlikely that the scratch occurred in between these two dates.

The landlord gave further evidence that in their opinion, a scratch like the one caused to the front door could only have been made by furniture being removed. The landlord claims the scratch is a moderate size and quite deep. The landlord claims this is consistent with the scratch being caused by large and heavy items such as furniture. Tenant

The tenant gave evidence that they vacated the premises on 17 January 2025. This was the date the tenant hired movers to assist them move everything out of the property. The tenant gave evidence that the movers worked a full day finishing around 7:00pm.

The tenant gave evidence that they were working on 17 January 2025, but were able to pop back home periodically. The tenant gave evidence that they left the premises for the final time around 6:00pm on 17 January 2025.

The tenant gave evidence that the scratch did not occur during the tenancy and it was not there on 17 January 2025.

When the scratch was brought to the tenant’s attention on 24 January 2025, they gave evidence that they contacted the movers who denied causing the scratch.

The tenant gave evidence that the street that the property is situated on is routinely used by local children who skateboard. The tenant claims the scratch could have been caused by a child skateboarding or any other number of possible scenarios.

In response to the landlord’s evidence that the reason they did not notice the scratch on 21 January 2025 was because of an oversight, the tenant submits this is unlikely. The tenant gave evidence that they were subject to regular inspections throughout the tenancy, which were detailed, with numerous photographs being taken. The tenant says a high level of attention to detail was taken during inspections and therefore, it is unlikely that the landlord would have missed the presence of a scratch on the door at the final inspection on 21 January 2025. The tenant submits that the reason the landlord did not notice it on this date is because it was not there. Analysis

The landlord completed the final inspection on 21 January 2025 and did not notice a scratch on the front door. The landlord submits that the scratch was present, but that they merely missed. No evidence to support this claim was submitted. For example, no photographs of the front door taken on 21 January 2025 showing the scratch was present, but merely not noticed by the landlord were submitted. The only photographs of the scratch submitted to the Tribunal were taken by the landlord on 24 January 2025.

The landlord did not submit any evidence from the movers confirming that they caused the scratch. The landlord accepted at the hearing that this was a suspicion. The tenant gave evidence that they enquired about the scratch with the movers who stated that they did not cause it.

The landlord claims that the nature of the scratch is consistent with the cause being the removal of furniture however, I consider it is also reasonably consistent with a number of other potential causes such as a tree branch or other piece of debris being blown in the wind and scraping against the front door.

In all of the circumstances, I am unsure about when and how the scratch occurred.

The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the scratch occurred during the tenancy by the tenant or a person at the property with the tenant’s permission.

The landlord’s claim for compensation in relation to the front door is dismissed. FILING FEE & SUPPRESSION

Both parties have been substantially successful with their claims and therefore, I do not order that either party reimburse the filing fee. I also grant both parties’ request for name suppression for the same reason.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5169154 — net $933.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
By consent: Rent arrears to 19 January 2025	$475.71	By consent: Rent arrears to 19 January 2025
By consent: Carpet Cleaning	$138.00	By consent: Carpet Cleaning
By consent: Rubbish removal and weeding	$320.00	By consent: Rubbish removal and weeding
Net award	$933.71
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$933.71