What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5227711 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 5227711?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5227711?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5227711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12050344-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5227711 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 5227711?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5227711?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5227711?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12050344-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5227711 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5227711 — 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	$2,120.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenants] immediately.
Four Seasons Property Management Limited - As Agent For Anna Serrano And Shane Barrera must pay [The tenants] $27.00 immediately, 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.
The tenants have made a cross application for refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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.
There was some damage to the wooden benchtop in the kitchen/dining/laundry area of the house that was exacerbated rather than caused during the tenancy: The landlord says this damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant.
The tenants have produced photographs that prove the bench top was not properly sealed at the start of the tenancy and was therefore permeable and that the bench top had scratches and pot marks on it at the start of the tenancy that did get worse over the course of the tenancy through normal usage or fair wear and tear. The tenants have also produced communications that prove they raised the issue of the unsealed and permeable benchtop with the landlord in 2022. The property manager had evidence that the landlord had looked into getting the bench top sanded and resealed at that time (October 2022) but had not gone ahead with the repair. The tenants also had communications that prove the sanding and re varnishing of the bench top was discussed in October 2022 and that the tenants were away for 6 weeks in December 2022 and the bench top could have been redone at that time. The tenants confirmed the landlord did not go ahead with the repair work as the tenants did not want a thinner bench or a lower sink and chose to have the old top left in place until the end of their tenancy. They were shocked when the landlord tried to get them to pay for the new top and new sink. In addition, the property managers exit inspection report clearly indicates a view the tenants should have received their bond back. It appears that the landlord’s insurance did not cover the replacement of the bench top and sink and that it was worth applying to the Tribunal in an effort to get the tenants to pay that cost.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for the replacement of the bench top and sink is dismissed as it has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities, and the tenant have disproven the claim. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with their claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because Four Seasons Property Management Limited - As Agent For Anna Serrano And Shane Barrera has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claim its application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name Suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
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 have substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.
The landlord has also applied for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claim. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct in this matter, in that it has tried to force the tenants to pay for damage it had already admitted had occurred during prior tenancies because the bench top was not sealed and permeable. During the tenancy this issue is addressed by the parties and the landlord considers getting the bench top sanded and resealed to stop further damage as it was foreseeable the permeable surface would continue to deteriorate with use. I addition, the property managers exit inspection clearly indicates a view the tenants should have received their bond back and the initial property manager accepted the entry inspection photographs taken did not adequately represent the poor state the house and bench top were in at the start of the tenancy and asked the tenants to ask their own photographic record, which they did. These photographs more clearly show the state of the bench top at the start of the tenancy and that the house was in a cleaner stated on the tenants exit than it was on their entry.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed for the reasons set out above.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5227711 — 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	$2,120.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$27.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenants] immediately.
Four Seasons Property Management Limited - As Agent For Anna Serrano And Shane Barrera must pay [The tenants] $27.00 immediately, 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.
The tenants have made a cross application for refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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.
There was some damage to the wooden benchtop in the kitchen/dining/laundry area of the house that was exacerbated rather than caused during the tenancy: The landlord says this damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant.
The tenants have produced photographs that prove the bench top was not properly sealed at the start of the tenancy and was therefore permeable and that the bench top had scratches and pot marks on it at the start of the tenancy that did get worse over the course of the tenancy through normal usage or fair wear and tear. The tenants have also produced communications that prove they raised the issue of the unsealed and permeable benchtop with the landlord in 2022. The property manager had evidence that the landlord had looked into getting the bench top sanded and resealed at that time (October 2022) but had not gone ahead with the repair. The tenants also had communications that prove the sanding and re varnishing of the bench top was discussed in October 2022 and that the tenants were away for 6 weeks in December 2022 and the bench top could have been redone at that time. The tenants confirmed the landlord did not go ahead with the repair work as the tenants did not want a thinner bench or a lower sink and chose to have the old top left in place until the end of their tenancy. They were shocked when the landlord tried to get them to pay for the new top and new sink. In addition, the property managers exit inspection report clearly indicates a view the tenants should have received their bond back. It appears that the landlord’s insurance did not cover the replacement of the bench top and sink and that it was worth applying to the Tribunal in an effort to get the tenants to pay that cost.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for the replacement of the bench top and sink is dismissed as it has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities, and the tenant have disproven the claim. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with their claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.
Because Four Seasons Property Management Limited - As Agent For Anna Serrano And Shane Barrera has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claim its application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name Suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
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 have substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.
The landlord has also applied for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded with its claim. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct in this matter, in that it has tried to force the tenants to pay for damage it had already admitted had occurred during prior tenancies because the bench top was not sealed and permeable. During the tenancy this issue is addressed by the parties and the landlord considers getting the bench top sanded and resealed to stop further damage as it was foreseeable the permeable surface would continue to deteriorate with use. I addition, the property managers exit inspection clearly indicates a view the tenants should have received their bond back and the initial property manager accepted the entry inspection photographs taken did not adequately represent the poor state the house and bench top were in at the start of the tenancy and asked the tenants to ask their own photographic record, which they did. These photographs more clearly show the state of the bench top at the start of the tenancy and that the house was in a cleaner stated on the tenants exit than it was on their entry.
The landlord’s application for name suppression is dismissed for the reasons set out above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5227711 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5227711 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the 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 responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions