What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5234140 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5234140?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234140?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12159358-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5234140 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5234140?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234140?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234140?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12159358-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

2 Fry Street, Motueka, Motueka 7120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5234140 — State of repair

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams.

Both parties attended.

The landlord has applied for compensation for loss arising from carpet stains and paintwork damage. Background

The tenancy began on 10 October 2018 and ended on 20 February 2025.

During the more than six years of the tenancy, the carpets incurred more significant stains (possibly from spilt turmeric infused tea), and the walls in two bedrooms sustained some damage (possibly principally from bedframes knocking the walls.

The carpets were not pristine at the beginning of the tenancy and were about eight years old by the end of the tenancy.

The landlord’s insurer covered the cost of replacing the carpets to a value of over $3,000.00, but the landlord had to contribute $1,650.00 by way of excess. The carpet damage

Carpets generally have a useful life of about eight years. The carpets in this case were therefore probably near the end of their useful life, the standard being determined by reference to the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises including that carpet to a reasonable standard.

In this case, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord suffered any loss once depreciation and betterment is taken into account. 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 this case, the landlord is better off because having been paid out by her insurer, she has brand new carpets at a much-reduced cost.

The claim for compensation for the carpet is dismissed. The paintwork damage

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.

The landlord must also prove loss arising from the tenant’s breach.

Probably the wall damage arising from the bedframes was ordinary fair wear and tear. However, damage such as the paint damaged by the door handle going through the wall was careless and the tenants are liable for the cost of remediating that.

However, wall paintwork generally has an expected useful life of about five years before the landlord has to repaint the walls due to ordinary fair wear and tear. The damage in this case appears to have been largely of that nature. The tenants repaired the hole in the wall themselves but did not repaint because the wall colour was a tricky tint to replicate, and they thought it would make sense to leave that to the landlord.

The landlord has suffered no loss once depreciation and betterment is considered.

It follows, I decline to order compensation. Bond

Tenancy Services are to return the bond to the tenants. Non-publication

I order non-publication of the tenants’ names pursuant to s 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The tenants have succeeded in the proceedings. They would be entitled to non- publication under s 95A(1). I consider it is in the public interest to grant non-publication. Neither tenants actions nor any other circumstance favour publication.

The Tribunal orders non-publication on its own initiative.

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The application is dismissed.
Tenancy Services it to return the bond to the tenants.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams.
Both parties attended.
The landlord has applied for compensation for loss arising from carpet stains and paintwork damage. Background
The tenancy began on 10 October 2018 and ended on 20 February 2025.
During the more than six years of the tenancy, the carpets incurred more significant stains (possibly from spilt turmeric infused tea), and the walls in two bedrooms sustained some damage (possibly principally from bedframes knocking the walls.
The carpets were not pristine at the beginning of the tenancy and were about eight years old by the end of the tenancy.
The landlord’s insurer covered the cost of replacing the carpets to a value of over $3,000.00, but the landlord had to contribute $1,650.00 by way of excess. The carpet damage
Carpets generally have a useful life of about eight years. The carpets in this case were therefore probably near the end of their useful life, the standard being determined by reference to the landlord’s obligation to maintain the premises including that carpet to a reasonable standard.
In this case, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the landlord suffered any loss once depreciation and betterment is taken into account. 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 this case, the landlord is better off because having been paid out by her insurer, she has brand new carpets at a much-reduced cost.
The claim for compensation for the carpet is dismissed. The paintwork damage
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord must also prove loss arising from the tenant’s breach.
Probably the wall damage arising from the bedframes was ordinary fair wear and tear. However, damage such as the paint damaged by the door handle going through the wall was careless and the tenants are liable for the cost of remediating that.
However, wall paintwork generally has an expected useful life of about five years before the landlord has to repaint the walls due to ordinary fair wear and tear. The damage in this case appears to have been largely of that nature. The tenants repaired the hole in the wall themselves but did not repaint because the wall colour was a tricky tint to replicate, and they thought it would make sense to leave that to the landlord.
The landlord has suffered no loss once depreciation and betterment is considered.
It follows, I decline to order compensation. Bond
Tenancy Services are to return the bond to the tenants. Non-publication
I order non-publication of the tenants’ names pursuant to s 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest order that the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants have succeeded in the proceedings. They would be entitled to non- publication under s 95A(1). I consider it is in the public interest to grant non-publication. Neither tenants actions nor any other circumstance favour publication.
The Tribunal orders non-publication on its own initiative.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5234140 — State of repair at 2 Fry Street, Motueka, Motueka 7120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5234140 — State of repair at 2 Fry Street, Motueka, Motueka 7120

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions