What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5171852 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 5171852?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5171852?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5171852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11843073-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5171852 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 5171852?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5171852?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5171852?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11843073-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

96 Harbour Terrace, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016, Vatican Tenancy Tribunal Case 5171852 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

96 Harbour Terrace, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016, Vatican Tenancy Tribunal Case 5171852 — Tenancy dispute | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5171852 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$4,680.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Claims and awards for application 5171852 — net $27.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $27.00

Bond

Tenant $4,680.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $27.00

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — DAMAGE The law
Compensation — FILING FEE & SUPPRESSION

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Cleanliness Compensation

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Edinburgh Realty Limited As Agent For Cream Investment Trustee Limited must pay the tenant $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has filed an application seeking a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has filed a cross-application for compensation for cleaning and damage. The landlord also seeks a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Each party 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.

CLEANING

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord gave evidence that the bathrooms had not been cleaned, the floors had not been mopped, the skirting boards had not been wiped, the lint tray in the dryer had not been cleaned and the walls were grubby.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs are mostly of dents in the walls however, there are also some close up photographs of the back of the curtains, a portion of the floor, one light fitting, the lint tray from the dryer and the carpet.
The photograph of the lint tray in the dryer shows that it has not been cleaned. The close up photograph of the floor shows a small portion of the floor with dust and debris on it.
The photograph of the light fitting shows some fly excrement on it. The photograph of the carpet shows a mark on it.
The landlord has had the property professionally cleaned and submitted an invoice for $379.50. The landlord seeks compensation of $300.00 towards this invoice.
The landlord did not submit any photographs of the bathrooms, but did submit a letter form the cleaner who attended the property. In this letter, the cleaner relevantly states: ... In the bathrooms, we performed a full cleaning, including sanitizing the toilets, sinks, shower doors, mirrors, and windows. Two showers, which had not been cleaned previously, were thoroughly cleaned, with pink grime removed. We also cleaned all drains, removing mold, hair/shaver parts, and other debris.
The landlord gave evidence that although the tenant advised them they had completed a thorough clean of the property, this was not in fact the case. Tenant’s evidence and submissions 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The tenant gave evidence that the property was not provided to them in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant claims they had to undertake cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy to bring the property up to an acceptable standard.
The tenant gave evidence that they vacuumed and mopped the floors where possible. The tenant accepts that they did not mop the kitchen floor, but gave evidence this was because the floorboards in the kitchen did not permit this. The tenant claims the floorboards began separating during the tenancy. The tenant states they raised this issue with the landlord who attempted a repair. The tenant gave evidence that a contractor advised them that the repair completed by the landlord was unsatisfactory and an entire replacement of the floor was required to properly fix the problem. The tenant gave evidence that the contractor advised them that wetting the floorboards might risk moisture getting underneath, which could lead to an accumulation of mould. Concerned about permanently damaging the floors, the tenant gave evidence that they have only ever been able to wipe the floor in the kitchen with a thin cloth. The tenant states this is what they did at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant gave evidence that they cleaned the bathrooms thoroughly and strongly denies the landlord’s claim that the bathrooms were unclean.
The tenant accepts that some parts of the walls might have had marks on them but claims this was the condition the property was provided to them in at the beginning of the tenancy. Analysis
Disputes between landlords and tenants about how clean a property was at the end of a tenancy are common. Photographs taken at the end of the tenancy are helpful in assisting the Tribunal to determine whether a property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state or not.
In this case, the landlord submitted a total of 18 photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. Of these, 7 are of scratches, dents or cracks in the walls and a window frame. These photographs appear relevant to a claim for compensation for damage however, the landlord has not filed any such claim. Photographs of scratches, dents or cracks do not help the landlord to prove that the tenant left the premises in an unreasonably clean and tidy condition.
A further 5 photographs are of the back of the curtains. They show what appears to be an accumulation of mould and some marks. These photographs also do not prove that the tenant left the premises in an unreasonably clean and tidy condition. It is common for mould and marks to appear on the backs of curtains during winter when condensation is more likely to build on the inside of windows.
The only photographs relevant to the state of cleanliness of the property at the end of the tenancy are the photographs of a small section of the floor, a small section of the carpet, one light fitting and the lint tray in the dryer.
I accept that the photograph of a small section of the floor shows some dust and debris is present however, this is a close up photograph of one relatively small section of the floor. No other photographs of the floor were submitted. From this photograph alone, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the rest of the flooring in the premises was left in a similar condition. The fact that a small section of the floor had some dust and debris on it does not render the entire premises unreasonably clean and tidy. The same can be said for the photograph of fly excrement on one light fitting and lint in the lint tray in the dryer.
I have considered the comments of the professional cleaner in the letter submitted by the landlord however, I can only place limited weight on this evidence. This is because the landlord did not call the cleaner as a witness to give evidence at the hearing. The tenant disagrees with the comments of the cleaner and strongly states that they cleaned the bathrooms at the end of the tenancy. The ability of the Tribunal to test the claims of the cleaner by asking questions is limited, as the cleaner did not appear to give evidence.
No photographs of the kitchen, bedrooms, living/dining room or bathrooms were submitted by the landlord. The absence of these photographs means I am unable to get a general sense of the state the property was left in at the end of the tenancy.
For these reasons, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant left the premises in an unreasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is dismissed.

DAMAGE

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 of permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 7 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 8 Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims the tenant damaged a shower waste tray during the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that the waste tray was intact at the beginning of the tenancy an submitted a close up photograph of the waste tray in the shower taken at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that the waste tray was broken at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord did not submit a photograph of the broken waste shower tray.
The landlord submitted an invoice from a plumber for $175.95 to replace the shower waste tray.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant offered to purchase a replacement shower waste tray and install it themselves however, this was not feasible as a new tenancy had begun and new tenants were living in the premises. Further, the landlord claims the owner wanted the work completed by a professional.
The landlord gave evidence that the waste tray was made of metal and was approximately 2 years old at the beginning of the tenancy. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant accepts that the waste tray was damaged during the tenancy, but claims it was already partially broken at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant claims that the further deterioration that occurred during the tenancy is a result of fair wear and tear.
The tenant gave evidence that they brought the condition of the waste tray up with the landlord early on in the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence that at this stage, only about one third of the waste tray was broken. The tenant claims nothing was done to repair the waste tray, which deteriorated further throughout the tenancy.
The tenant gave evidence that it is not possible to see the fact that the waste tray was broken at the beginning of the tenancy by the photographs submitted 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. by the landlord, This is because the tenant claims that pressure needed to be applied to the waste tray to show the cracks.
The tenant gave evidence that the waste tray was not metal, but a silver coated plastic. Analysis
The onus of proving that the damage to the shower waste tray is not fair wear and tear on the balance of probabilities rests with the landlord. 9 The landlord must first establish that this is the case before the Tribunal can consider whether the damage is careless or intentional.
The waste tray was approximately 2 years old at the beginning of the tenancy. It was not brand new and its condition would have already deteriorated to some degree from use before this tenancy began.
The landlord claims the waste tray was metal and the tenant submits it was a hard plastic. No evidence confirming the quality of the waste tray was submitted and I am unsure about this point.
This tenancy was one year long and the tenant gave evidence that two people used the shower in which the waste tray was kept.
The landlord did not submit any evidence to suggest unreasonable use of the shower by the tenant.
In these circumstances, I consider it more likely than not that the damage to the waste tray is a result of reasonable use and the ordinary operation of natural forces. In other words, it is fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the shower waste tray is dismissed. FILING FEE & SUPPRESSION
The tenant has been wholly successful in their claim. Therefore, I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee and grant the tenant’s request for name suppression. 10
The landlord has not been wholly or partly successful in their claim and therefore, I cannot order that the tenant reimburse the filing fee. 11 9 Nixon v Geal-Olter (216/94 North Shore District Court December 1995). 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 95A(1) and 102(4)(a). 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 102(4)(a) & (b).
The landlord requested name suppression. I am not required to grant the landlord’s request, as they have not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim. 12
I have a residual discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
This is not a particularly unusual or sensitive case. I cannot think of any extraordinary reason or special circumstances, which would outweigh the public’s interest in publication.
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. I do not consider that this is an appropriate case to grant name suppression to the landlord and I decline to do so.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5171852 — net $27.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$27.00
Bond	$4,680.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Claims and awards for application 5171852 — net $27.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Net award

Tenant $27.00

Bond

Tenant $4,680.00

Total payable by Landlord to Tenant

Tenant $27.00

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — DAMAGE The law
Compensation — FILING FEE & SUPPRESSION

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Cleanliness Compensation

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Edinburgh Realty Limited As Agent For Cream Investment Trustee Limited must pay the tenant $27.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,680.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has filed an application seeking a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has filed a cross-application for compensation for cleaning and damage. The landlord also seeks a refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Each party 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.

CLEANING

The law

At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and remove all rubbish. 1
“Reasonably” clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 2 It does not mean commercially clean, 3 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 Housing New Zealand v Holloway NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. 3 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd NZTT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at [8]. spotless 4 or to a hotel or motel standard. 5 The better the premises and the higher the rent payable, the higher the standard expected. 6 Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord gave evidence that the bathrooms had not been cleaned, the floors had not been mopped, the skirting boards had not been wiped, the lint tray in the dryer had not been cleaned and the walls were grubby.
The landlord submitted photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. These photographs are mostly of dents in the walls however, there are also some close up photographs of the back of the curtains, a portion of the floor, one light fitting, the lint tray from the dryer and the carpet.
The photograph of the lint tray in the dryer shows that it has not been cleaned. The close up photograph of the floor shows a small portion of the floor with dust and debris on it.
The photograph of the light fitting shows some fly excrement on it. The photograph of the carpet shows a mark on it.
The landlord has had the property professionally cleaned and submitted an invoice for $379.50. The landlord seeks compensation of $300.00 towards this invoice.
The landlord did not submit any photographs of the bathrooms, but did submit a letter form the cleaner who attended the property. In this letter, the cleaner relevantly states: ... In the bathrooms, we performed a full cleaning, including sanitizing the toilets, sinks, shower doors, mirrors, and windows. Two showers, which had not been cleaned previously, were thoroughly cleaned, with pink grime removed. We also cleaned all drains, removing mold, hair/shaver parts, and other debris.
The landlord gave evidence that although the tenant advised them they had completed a thorough clean of the property, this was not in fact the case. Tenant’s evidence and submissions 4 Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 5 Richards v Scully NZTT Christchurch TT858/97, 8 May 1997 at [3]; Chang v Driscoll NZTT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998 at [6]. 6 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759 at [770].
The tenant gave evidence that the property was not provided to them in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant claims they had to undertake cleaning at the beginning of the tenancy to bring the property up to an acceptable standard.
The tenant gave evidence that they vacuumed and mopped the floors where possible. The tenant accepts that they did not mop the kitchen floor, but gave evidence this was because the floorboards in the kitchen did not permit this. The tenant claims the floorboards began separating during the tenancy. The tenant states they raised this issue with the landlord who attempted a repair. The tenant gave evidence that a contractor advised them that the repair completed by the landlord was unsatisfactory and an entire replacement of the floor was required to properly fix the problem. The tenant gave evidence that the contractor advised them that wetting the floorboards might risk moisture getting underneath, which could lead to an accumulation of mould. Concerned about permanently damaging the floors, the tenant gave evidence that they have only ever been able to wipe the floor in the kitchen with a thin cloth. The tenant states this is what they did at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant gave evidence that they cleaned the bathrooms thoroughly and strongly denies the landlord’s claim that the bathrooms were unclean.
The tenant accepts that some parts of the walls might have had marks on them but claims this was the condition the property was provided to them in at the beginning of the tenancy. Analysis
Disputes between landlords and tenants about how clean a property was at the end of a tenancy are common. Photographs taken at the end of the tenancy are helpful in assisting the Tribunal to determine whether a property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state or not.
In this case, the landlord submitted a total of 18 photographs taken at the end of the tenancy. Of these, 7 are of scratches, dents or cracks in the walls and a window frame. These photographs appear relevant to a claim for compensation for damage however, the landlord has not filed any such claim. Photographs of scratches, dents or cracks do not help the landlord to prove that the tenant left the premises in an unreasonably clean and tidy condition.
A further 5 photographs are of the back of the curtains. They show what appears to be an accumulation of mould and some marks. These photographs also do not prove that the tenant left the premises in an unreasonably clean and tidy condition. It is common for mould and marks to appear on the backs of curtains during winter when condensation is more likely to build on the inside of windows.
The only photographs relevant to the state of cleanliness of the property at the end of the tenancy are the photographs of a small section of the floor, a small section of the carpet, one light fitting and the lint tray in the dryer.
I accept that the photograph of a small section of the floor shows some dust and debris is present however, this is a close up photograph of one relatively small section of the floor. No other photographs of the floor were submitted. From this photograph alone, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the rest of the flooring in the premises was left in a similar condition. The fact that a small section of the floor had some dust and debris on it does not render the entire premises unreasonably clean and tidy. The same can be said for the photograph of fly excrement on one light fitting and lint in the lint tray in the dryer.
I have considered the comments of the professional cleaner in the letter submitted by the landlord however, I can only place limited weight on this evidence. This is because the landlord did not call the cleaner as a witness to give evidence at the hearing. The tenant disagrees with the comments of the cleaner and strongly states that they cleaned the bathrooms at the end of the tenancy. The ability of the Tribunal to test the claims of the cleaner by asking questions is limited, as the cleaner did not appear to give evidence.
No photographs of the kitchen, bedrooms, living/dining room or bathrooms were submitted by the landlord. The absence of these photographs means I am unable to get a general sense of the state the property was left in at the end of the tenancy.
For these reasons, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities that the tenant left the premises in an unreasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for cleaning is dismissed.

DAMAGE

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 of permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 7 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B.
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 8 Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord claims the tenant damaged a shower waste tray during the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that the waste tray was intact at the beginning of the tenancy an submitted a close up photograph of the waste tray in the shower taken at the beginning of the tenancy.
The landlord gave evidence that the waste tray was broken at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord did not submit a photograph of the broken waste shower tray.
The landlord submitted an invoice from a plumber for $175.95 to replace the shower waste tray.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant offered to purchase a replacement shower waste tray and install it themselves however, this was not feasible as a new tenancy had begun and new tenants were living in the premises. Further, the landlord claims the owner wanted the work completed by a professional.
The landlord gave evidence that the waste tray was made of metal and was approximately 2 years old at the beginning of the tenancy. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant accepts that the waste tray was damaged during the tenancy, but claims it was already partially broken at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant claims that the further deterioration that occurred during the tenancy is a result of fair wear and tear.
The tenant gave evidence that they brought the condition of the waste tray up with the landlord early on in the tenancy. The tenant gave evidence that at this stage, only about one third of the waste tray was broken. The tenant claims nothing was done to repair the waste tray, which deteriorated further throughout the tenancy.
The tenant gave evidence that it is not possible to see the fact that the waste tray was broken at the beginning of the tenancy by the photographs submitted 8 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. by the landlord, This is because the tenant claims that pressure needed to be applied to the waste tray to show the cracks.
The tenant gave evidence that the waste tray was not metal, but a silver coated plastic. Analysis
The onus of proving that the damage to the shower waste tray is not fair wear and tear on the balance of probabilities rests with the landlord. 9 The landlord must first establish that this is the case before the Tribunal can consider whether the damage is careless or intentional.
The waste tray was approximately 2 years old at the beginning of the tenancy. It was not brand new and its condition would have already deteriorated to some degree from use before this tenancy began.
The landlord claims the waste tray was metal and the tenant submits it was a hard plastic. No evidence confirming the quality of the waste tray was submitted and I am unsure about this point.
This tenancy was one year long and the tenant gave evidence that two people used the shower in which the waste tray was kept.
The landlord did not submit any evidence to suggest unreasonable use of the shower by the tenant.
In these circumstances, I consider it more likely than not that the damage to the waste tray is a result of reasonable use and the ordinary operation of natural forces. In other words, it is fair wear and tear.
The landlord’s claim for compensation to replace the shower waste tray is dismissed. FILING FEE & SUPPRESSION
The tenant has been wholly successful in their claim. Therefore, I must order the landlord to reimburse the filing fee and grant the tenant’s request for name suppression. 10
The landlord has not been wholly or partly successful in their claim and therefore, I cannot order that the tenant reimburse the filing fee. 11 9 Nixon v Geal-Olter (216/94 North Shore District Court December 1995). 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 95A(1) and 102(4)(a). 11 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 102(4)(a) & (b).
The landlord requested name suppression. I am not required to grant the landlord’s request, as they have not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim. 12
I have a residual discretion to grant the landlord name suppression under section 95A(3) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
This is not a particularly unusual or sensitive case. I cannot think of any extraordinary reason or special circumstances, which would outweigh the public’s interest in publication.
I have considered the interests of the parties and the public interest. I do not consider that this is an appropriate case to grant name suppression to the landlord and I decline to do so.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5171852 — Tenancy dispute at 96 Harbour Terrace, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016, Vatican

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5171852 — Tenancy dispute at 96 Harbour Terrace, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016, Vatican

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

CLEANING

DAMAGE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

CLEANING

DAMAGE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions