What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5178591?

The tribunal order states: Swetha Kumaran to pay Quinovic Property Management Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5178591?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $38.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5178591?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5178591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11575255-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5178591?

The tribunal order states: Swetha Kumaran to pay Quinovic Property Management Limited as Agent for

How much money was awarded in case 5178591?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Rent Arrears: $38.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5178591?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5178591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11575255-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 4, 158 Peverel Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5178591 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5178591 — net $11.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 31.1.25	$38.57		Rent arrears to 31.1.25
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$38.57	$27.00
Net award	$11.57
Bond	$1,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11.57

Order

Swetha Kumaran to pay Quinovic Property Management Limited as Agent for The Lawnhayes Trust $11.57 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (5632958-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Quinovic Property Management Limited As Agent For The Lawnhayes Trust: $11.57 Swetha Kumaran: $988.43
The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.
This is a cross application.
The tenant has applied for a refund of her bond.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal provisions
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities.
The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”.
Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 1
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 2 , 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 or 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.

How much is owed for rent?

1 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. 2 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02

The tenancy ended on 31 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and the amount ordered is by consent.

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. 3
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). 4
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 5 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 6
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The carpet was damaged.
The carpet was scorched by a small hot round pan falling or being placed on it. The landlord says the tenant appears to have placed the item on the ground to cause the damage. The landlord says the damage is careless and seeks $250 being the insurance excess amount.
The tenant says she dropped a small hot pan accidentally on the ground, causing the damage.
The claim is dismissed for the following reasons.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The estimated useful lifespan, according to the IRD IR265 (general depreciation rates) for carpet in a residential tenancy is 8 years. The landlord said the carpet 3 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 4 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 5 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. would be more than 5 years old but could not say exactly how old the damage is. Without any information about how old the carpet is, but considering it is over 5 years old, I cannot discount that the carpet is beyond its useful lifespan.
The carpet has not been repaired or replaced and the landlord could not say when this will occur, therefore I consider the landlord has not proven on the evidence that they have incurred a loss for which they should be compensated for.
No quote was provided in support of the claim. Bond
The bond is to be paid to the parties in accordance with the distributions set out in the order. Filing fee
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Neither party sought name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5178591 — net $11.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 31.1.25	$38.57		Rent arrears to 31.1.25
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$38.57	$27.00
Net award	$11.57
Bond	$1,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$11.57

Order

Swetha Kumaran to pay Quinovic Property Management Limited as Agent for The Lawnhayes Trust $11.57 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (5632958-016) immediately apportioned as follows: Quinovic Property Management Limited As Agent For The Lawnhayes Trust: $11.57 Swetha Kumaran: $988.43
The balance of the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by phone.
This is a cross application.
The tenant has applied for a refund of her bond.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal provisions
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities.
The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”.
Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
The more serious the claims made the greater the evidential burden on the applicant will be. 1
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 2 , 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 or 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.

How much is owed for rent?

1 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55. 2 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02

The tenancy ended on 31 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy and the amount ordered is by consent.

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. 3
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). 4
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 5 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 6
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The carpet was damaged.
The carpet was scorched by a small hot round pan falling or being placed on it. The landlord says the tenant appears to have placed the item on the ground to cause the damage. The landlord says the damage is careless and seeks $250 being the insurance excess amount.
The tenant says she dropped a small hot pan accidentally on the ground, causing the damage.
The claim is dismissed for the following reasons.
I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The estimated useful lifespan, according to the IRD IR265 (general depreciation rates) for carpet in a residential tenancy is 8 years. The landlord said the carpet 3 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 4 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 5 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. would be more than 5 years old but could not say exactly how old the damage is. Without any information about how old the carpet is, but considering it is over 5 years old, I cannot discount that the carpet is beyond its useful lifespan.
The carpet has not been repaired or replaced and the landlord could not say when this will occur, therefore I consider the landlord has not proven on the evidence that they have incurred a loss for which they should be compensated for.
No quote was provided in support of the claim. Bond
The bond is to be paid to the parties in accordance with the distributions set out in the order. Filing fee
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5178591 — Rent arrears at Room 4, 158 Peverel Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5178591 — Rent arrears at Room 4, 158 Peverel Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions