How much money was awarded in case 5222491?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $125.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5222491?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5222491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12049449-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5222491?

Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $125.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5222491?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5222491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12049449-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

23 Squadron Road, Wigram, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5222491 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5222491 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 5222491 — net $202.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$50.00	Cleaning
Repairs to paint	$125.00	Repairs to paint
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$202.00
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$202.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited - As Agent For Shu Rong Liu $202.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Rempstone Property Management Limited - As Agent For Shu Rong Liu: $202.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,678.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The amount ordered is reduced from that claimed. Tenants need not leave a property spotless. The photographs provided pursued me that in general the property was reasonably clean and that most of the “touch up” cleaning claimed is therefore not their responsibility.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: the ceiling in a shower had paint that peeled. The evidence establishes that this was a preexisting issue. It does not establish that the tenant’s used the shower carelessly. The occupants of the master bedroom (to which the shower/ensuite) was attached, said that they always issued the extractor fan, that they always opened a window and did not shower for excessive periods of time. One of the tenants, who occupied the room and is an engineer, said that it is likely the issue arose because the fan did not have sufficient extraction capacity (but this cannot be confirmed).

I have awarded a small part only of the claim for repainting of two door frames. While likely the damage to the paintwork occurred during the tenancy, the paintwork was 8 or 9 years old.

Principles of betterment and depreciation mean that the paintwork was nearing the end of its useful life and to award the full cost claimed would be to return the landlord to a better position than they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the paintwork at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.

The landlord’s request for reimbursement of the filing fee is approved as the claim is party successful.

The tenants claims for name suppression were not opposed and are approved. Their bond has more than covered the small amount they owe and there is no public interest in publishing their names.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5222491 — net $202.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$50.00	Cleaning
Repairs to paint	$125.00	Repairs to paint
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$202.00
Bond	$2,880.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$202.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Rempstone Property Management Limited - As Agent For Shu Rong Liu $202.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

I have awarded a small part only of the claim for repainting of two door frames. While likely the damage to the paintwork occurred during the tenancy, the paintwork was 8 or 9 years old.

The landlord’s request for reimbursement of the filing fee is approved as the claim is party successful.

The tenants claims for name suppression were not opposed and are approved. Their bond has more than covered the small amount they owe and there is no public interest in publishing their names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5222491 — Property damage at 23 Squadron Road, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5222491 — Property damage at 23 Squadron Road, Wigram, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions