What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5201571 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5201571?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Replace Furnishings: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5201571?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5201571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11722813-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5201571 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5201571?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Replace Furnishings: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5201571?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5201571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11722813-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

96 Hensman Road, Queenstown 9300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5201571 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5201571 — net $373.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace furnishings	$400.00		Replace furnishings
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$400.00	$27.00
Net award	$373.00
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$373.00

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The tenants are to pay Andrea Jakob and Frank Schreiber $373.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Andrea Jakob and Frank Schreiber: $373.00 [The tenants]: $2,427.00

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams.
All the parties attended the hearing by video link. The landlords’ accountant, Donald Jackson, also attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for return of their bond, less $400.00 towards an insurance excess to replace accidently damaged carpet.
The landlords sought compensation for damage to the carpet, blinds, vinyl flooring, and a wall.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

The landlords claim the tenants are liable for damage not only to the carpet – which the tenants accept – but also to the blinds, vinyl flooring, and a wall.
To succeed in their claim, the landlords 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
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). 2
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 1 Residential Tenancies Act, ss 40(2)(a), 41, 49B. 2 RTA, s 49B(3)(a). The blinds
I am not satisfied on the evidence that any damage to the blinds during the tenancy was more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants supplied a photograph of the bathroom blind at the beginning of the tenancy. It looks less than new and displays some damage.
The landlords should probably have replaced at least the bathroom blinds because they were not in a reasonable state of repair. Vinyl flooring
The dining/kitchen/living area had vinyl flooring that has the appearance of wooden floorboards.
The property manager’s photographs do not show the floors very clearly. It does appear they deteriorated during the tenancy.
The vinyl has splotchy marks on it and dark brown detritus. The marks and detritus have not been identified, although the landlords say they spoke to a flooring expert who opined the tenants must have spilt some substance on the floor. The tenants deny that.
The landlords had some very close-up photographs of the damage after the tenancy ended but there were no comparable close-up photographs taken at an earlier date.
The vinyl was about 25 years old. It was likely nearing the end of its useful life. The deterioration appears consistent with fair wear and tear. The expert’s evidence is unqualified and hearsay. It has minimal probative value, if any at all.
I am not persuaded that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. Wall damage
The master bedroom’s feature wall’s paint had a large chip flaking off it. The chip was in the vicinity of where the tenants had hammered some nails into the wall. The nailing probably caused the flaking.
However, the wall was overdue for a repaint. Painted walls have a life expectancy of about five years and the paintwork in this case was far older than that.
I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlords should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. The wall being overdue for repainting, the tenants are not liable for any repair because the repainting of the wall rendered any individual repair unnecessary. Conclusion
The tenants are liable for the landlords’ insurance excess for the damage to the carpet caused by one of the tenants leaving a hot iron on it. Otherwise, the landlords’ claims are dismissed. Filing fee
The landlords must reimburse the tenants for their filing fee because the tenants have been wholly successful in their claim. Bond
The bond is to be distributed in accordance with this order. Non-publication
The tenants seek and order for non-publication of their names and identifying d
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is allowed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5201571 — net $373.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace furnishings	$400.00		Replace furnishings
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$400.00	$27.00
Net award	$373.00
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$373.00

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The tenants are to pay Andrea Jakob and Frank Schreiber $373.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Andrea Jakob and Frank Schreiber: $373.00 [The tenants]: $2,427.00

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams.
All the parties attended the hearing by video link. The landlords’ accountant, Donald Jackson, also attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for return of their bond, less $400.00 towards an insurance excess to replace accidently damaged carpet.
The landlords sought compensation for damage to the carpet, blinds, vinyl flooring, and a wall.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

The landlords claim the tenants are liable for damage not only to the carpet – which the tenants accept – but also to the blinds, vinyl flooring, and a wall.
To succeed in their claim, the landlords 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
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). 2
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 1 Residential Tenancies Act, ss 40(2)(a), 41, 49B. 2 RTA, s 49B(3)(a). The blinds
I am not satisfied on the evidence that any damage to the blinds during the tenancy was more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants supplied a photograph of the bathroom blind at the beginning of the tenancy. It looks less than new and displays some damage.
The landlords should probably have replaced at least the bathroom blinds because they were not in a reasonable state of repair. Vinyl flooring
The dining/kitchen/living area had vinyl flooring that has the appearance of wooden floorboards.
The property manager’s photographs do not show the floors very clearly. It does appear they deteriorated during the tenancy.
The vinyl has splotchy marks on it and dark brown detritus. The marks and detritus have not been identified, although the landlords say they spoke to a flooring expert who opined the tenants must have spilt some substance on the floor. The tenants deny that.
The landlords had some very close-up photographs of the damage after the tenancy ended but there were no comparable close-up photographs taken at an earlier date.
The vinyl was about 25 years old. It was likely nearing the end of its useful life. The deterioration appears consistent with fair wear and tear. The expert’s evidence is unqualified and hearsay. It has minimal probative value, if any at all.
I am not persuaded that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. Wall damage
The master bedroom’s feature wall’s paint had a large chip flaking off it. The chip was in the vicinity of where the tenants had hammered some nails into the wall. The nailing probably caused the flaking.
However, the wall was overdue for a repaint. Painted walls have a life expectancy of about five years and the paintwork in this case was far older than that.
I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlords should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. The wall being overdue for repainting, the tenants are not liable for any repair because the repainting of the wall rendered any individual repair unnecessary. Conclusion
The tenants are liable for the landlords’ insurance excess for the damage to the carpet caused by one of the tenants leaving a hot iron on it. Otherwise, the landlords’ claims are dismissed. Filing fee
The landlords must reimburse the tenants for their filing fee because the tenants have been wholly successful in their claim. Bond
The bond is to be distributed in accordance with this order. Non-publication
The tenants seek and order for non-publication of their names and identifying d
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenants succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is allowed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5201571 — Tenancy dispute at 96 Hensman Road, Queenstown 9300

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5201571 — Tenancy dispute at 96 Hensman Road, Queenstown 9300

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions