How much money was awarded in case 5230171?

Carpet: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cupboards: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Damamge: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230171?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12258570-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5230171?

Carpet: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Cupboards: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Wall Damamge: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5230171?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5230171?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12258570-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5230171 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5230171 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5230171 — net $1,870.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Carpet	$1,500.00	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Kitchen Cupboards	$1,000.00	Repairs: Kitchen Cupboards
Repairs: Wall Damamge	$750.00	Repairs: Wall Damamge
Net award	$1,870.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,870.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] must pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited As Agent For Donna- Marie Bell $1,870.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Repairs: Carpet$1,500.00 Repairs: Kitchen Cupboards$1,000.00 Repairs: Wall Damamge$750.00 Total award$3,250.00 Bond$1,380.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,870.00

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,380.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Holmwood Real Estate Limited As Agent For Donna-Marie Bell immediately.

The parties other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing by video.

Both the property owner, Ms Bell and the property managers attended for the landlord.

The tenant had applied for refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. Application 5230171.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord sought compensation of approximately $29,000.

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. This tenancy ended in February; the landlord has carried out substantial renovation work at the premises but did not make an insurance claim for the alleged tenant damage.

The landlord claimed that kitchen cabinetry, walls, skirtings, tiling and carpets were damaged during the tenancy as well as a raft of ancillary items. Some photographic evidence was provided. There was limited evidence from the start of the tenancy.

The tenancy lasted six years. It is inevitable that there will be wear and tear on a property during that period as result of everyday, normal use of the premises. I also note that while the premises had been updated in 2014, with fresh paint work, it was not “completely renovated” as Ms Neilson stated out in her documents. The kitchen was original, from the 1950s or 1960s. I also note that this tenancy started in 2019, 4 to 5 years after the 2014 renovations.

The evidence before me establishes that there was some wall damage during the tenancy that was more than fair wear rand tear, there was damage to two kitchen cupboard fronts and the carpet was heavily stained. Other claims for damage were not established to the required civil standard.

It was difficult to follow the amounts claimed. The owner was seeking higher amounts than the property manager presented and there was overlap between the claims. It appeared that the property manager’s advice regarding the reasonableness of claims, evidence required, and onus of proof were not accepted by the property owner.

So, in assessing the amounts to award, I have considered what all parties said in evidence, reviewed all receipts and invoices and have taken account of previous claims of a similar nature and comment on each item. a. Carpet – Claim $2,340.45. The claim was based on invoices for purchase of carpet and laying. The carpet was not new at the start of the tenancy. The in-going report refers to the entry carpet as clean but aged and in bedrooms 2 & 3 as stained. Having regard to the evidence, including the age of the carpet and extent of staining at the end of the tenancy, I award $1,500 for carpet damage. b. Kitchen – The evidence establishes that two of the original timber or particle board cupboard fronts were damaged during the tenancy. The landlord sought the full replacement of new cabinetry for the entire kitchen. The landlord would have been entitled to replace to the two damaged fronts. I award $1,000 for the damage to cabinetry. c. Much of the painting claimed was a result of normal wear and tear and the inevitable knocks that can occur during everyday life. There was some damage that went beyond that, and I award $750 for painting.

As both parties were partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. Overall, I consider that the tenant was substantially successful and have awarded suppression of her details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5230171 — net $1,870.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Carpet	$1,500.00	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Kitchen Cupboards	$1,000.00	Repairs: Kitchen Cupboards
Repairs: Wall Damamge	$750.00	Repairs: Wall Damamge
Net award	$1,870.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,870.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Holmwood Real Estate Limited As Agent For Donna- Marie Bell $1,870.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Repairs: Carpet$1,500.00 Repairs: Kitchen Cupboards$1,000.00 Repairs: Wall Damamge$750.00 Total award$3,250.00 Bond$1,380.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,870.00
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,380.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Holmwood Real Estate Limited As Agent For Donna-Marie Bell immediately.
The parties other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a hearing by video.
Both the property owner, Ms Bell and the property managers attended for the landlord.
The tenant had applied for refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. Application 5230171.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord sought compensation of approximately $29,000.
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. This tenancy ended in February; the landlord has carried out substantial renovation work at the premises but did not make an insurance claim for the alleged tenant damage.
The landlord claimed that kitchen cabinetry, walls, skirtings, tiling and carpets were damaged during the tenancy as well as a raft of ancillary items. Some photographic evidence was provided. There was limited evidence from the start of the tenancy.
The tenancy lasted six years. It is inevitable that there will be wear and tear on a property during that period as result of everyday, normal use of the premises. I also note that while the premises had been updated in 2014, with fresh paint work, it was not “completely renovated” as Ms Neilson stated out in her documents. The kitchen was original, from the 1950s or 1960s. I also note that this tenancy started in 2019, 4 to 5 years after the 2014 renovations.
The evidence before me establishes that there was some wall damage during the tenancy that was more than fair wear rand tear, there was damage to two kitchen cupboard fronts and the carpet was heavily stained. Other claims for damage were not established to the required civil standard.
It was difficult to follow the amounts claimed. The owner was seeking higher amounts than the property manager presented and there was overlap between the claims. It appeared that the property manager’s advice regarding the reasonableness of claims, evidence required, and onus of proof were not accepted by the property owner.
So, in assessing the amounts to award, I have considered what all parties said in evidence, reviewed all receipts and invoices and have taken account of previous claims of a similar nature and comment on each item. a. Carpet – Claim $2,340.45. The claim was based on invoices for purchase of carpet and laying. The carpet was not new at the start of the tenancy. The in-going report refers to the entry carpet as clean but aged and in bedrooms 2 & 3 as stained. Having regard to the evidence, including the age of the carpet and extent of staining at the end of the tenancy, I award $1,500 for carpet damage. b. Kitchen – The evidence establishes that two of the original timber or particle board cupboard fronts were damaged during the tenancy. The landlord sought the full replacement of new cabinetry for the entire kitchen. The landlord would have been entitled to replace to the two damaged fronts. I award $1,000 for the damage to cabinetry. c. Much of the painting claimed was a result of normal wear and tear and the inevitable knocks that can occur during everyday life. There was some damage that went beyond that, and I award $750 for painting.
As both parties were partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee. Overall, I consider that the tenant was substantially successful and have awarded suppression of her details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230171 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5230171 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions