What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5246751 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 5246751?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $113.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $159.73 awarded to landlord; Rangehood Filter: $103.00 awarded to landlord; Waste Disposal Plug: $11.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5246751?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5246751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12145741-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5246751 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 5246751?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $113.60 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $159.73 awarded to landlord; Rangehood Filter: $103.00 awarded to landlord; Waste Disposal Plug: $11.88 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5246751?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5246751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12145741-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat c, 148 Aro Street, Aro Valley, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5246751 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5246751 — net $415.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Waste disposal plug	$11.88	Waste disposal plug
Rangehood filter	$103.00	Rangehood filter
By consent - repairs to the outside furniture	$113.60	By consent - repairs to the outside furniture
Repairs to the French doors	$159.73	Repairs to the French doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$415.21
Bond	$2,550.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$415.21

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5246751 — net $415.21 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Waste disposal plug	$11.88	Waste disposal plug
Rangehood filter	$103.00	Rangehood filter
By consent - repairs to the outside furniture	$113.60	By consent - repairs to the outside furniture
Repairs to the French doors	$159.73	Repairs to the French doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$415.21
Bond	$2,550.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$415.21

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Gracie Maria O'Leary, Danielle Jordon Bennett and Tabitha Grace Aregger to pay [The landlord/s] $415.21 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,550.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $415.21 Gracie Maria O'Leary, Danielle Jordon Bennett and Tabitha Grace Aregger: $2,134.79
All other claims are dismissed.

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 filed a cross application yesterday for the bond. By the time I was made aware of the cross application the hearing was underway. The tenants confirmed at the hearing that they filed the cross application to ensure they could defend the landlord’s claims rather than pursue their own claims.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is a claim for damage. The tenants agreed to pay to repair some outside furniture. All other claims were defended.
With any claim for damage the 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Lamp shade
There is a claim for a replacement lampshade on a standard lamp because two of three wires holding the lamp in place were broken at the end of the tenancy. The tenants said they were not sure how this happened but the damage was most likely fair wear and tear. This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I was provided with photos. It seems most likely to me the wires could have broken through normal use. I do not find the landlord has proved there was careless or intentional damage, and this claim is dismissed. Water filter and waste disposal plug
There is a claim for a broken water filter tap. The landlord said this was broken and could not be used at the end of the tenancy. He said there had been times over the three year tenancy when the tap was loose and moved around. He said he tightened the tap a couple of times and expected the tenants to report any further movement to him. The tenants said the tap was working at the end of the tenancy and they did not deliberately loosen it or break it. I have considered the photos and the evidence. I am not persuaded there was careless or intentional damage. It seems most likely to me the tap needed to be repaired because of the long standing maintenance issue. This claim is dismissed.
The claim for the plug is allowed. It was there at the start and gone at the end. The tenants have not disputed the claim and the amount allowed is proved. Broken fridge door pocket
The bottom shelf in the fridge door broke during the tenancy. The tenants put duct tape of the damaged shelf. The landlord submitted the tenants should pay because the shelf was brand new at the start of their tenancy. The previous tenants had cracked the bottom shelf in about the same place. It is possible there is a propensity for damage with that particular fridge fitting, and because people regularly put their heaviest items on the bottom shelf. I am not persuaded the landlord has proved there was careless or intentional damage. This claim is dismissed. Rangehood filter
The tenants agree they damaged one of the rangehood filters during their tenancy. They are not sure how it happened and believe the damage was the result of fair wear and tear. In any event, they do not believe the performance of the appliance has been affected. The landlord is claiming the cost of a replacement filter and I have been provided with an invoice and photos. It seems most likely to me the damage was careless because of the size of the dent and because it is easy to remove and clean the filters without damaging them. I am also persuaded the performance of the rangehood could be affected. This is claim is proved and allowed. Missing appliance user manuals
The landlord is claiming compensation for his time spent looking for user manuals online and arranging for someone to print these. The tenants said the manuals must have been thrown out by accident at the end of the tenancy, and they did not know they were required to return them. I am not persuaded I should allow this claim because any future tenants can look up the user manuals online. This claim is dismissed. Coffee table
The landlord is claiming the cost of replacing a coffee table because the tenants damaged the top of the one provided for use during the tenancy. The landlord provided photos but did not have an invoice to prove he had replaced the table. This claim is dismissed because the coffee table was still functional, and the landlord has not proved there was a loss. Oven damage
The landlord has claimed $500 towards the cost of replacing the Smeg oven, and $230 for the cost of replacing the cabinet the oven sits in. He said the oven was not dried properly during the tenancy causing rust inside the oven and damage to the MDF in the cabinet. The oven and the cabinet were nine years old at the end of the tenancy. The tenants do not agree to the claim.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. He provided me with photos showing water in the oven and on an oven tray at the end of the tenancy. I can see there are some chips in the enamel on the base of the oven. I was provided with very close up photos which the landlord said were rust on the upper element and on two screws which he had removed. There are two photos showing a damaged display. I was also provided with some of the instructions from the Smeg oven manual – which the tenants had - and a copy of detailed oven cleaning instructions provided by the landlord at the start of the tenancy. I was provided with a photo showing worn MDF at the front of the cabinet holding the oven.
The tenants said they used the oven a lot during their tenancy. They regularly cleaned the oven and it was checked by the landlord at every inspection. They do not agree they used an excessive amount of water when they cleaned, or that they carelessly or intentionally damaged the oven and cabinet. They said the worn spot in the display did not affect the function of the oven, and they could still read most of the display so their use was not affected either. They said the landlord had not proved the damage was more than fair wear and tear.
I have carefully considered the landlord’s evidence. I cannot see that the amount of water left inside the oven or on the tray could have caused rust. The missing bits of enamel look to be fair wear and tear. I do not have any photos showing the rusty element or rusty screws inside the oven, which is odd. I note the cleaning instructions I was provided with recommend drying to remove chemicals and cleaning products, not as a precaution against rust. The worn MDF looks to be consistent with normal wear and tear. Finally, I note that the landlord did not have an appliance repair person check the oven, so there is no independent evidence the oven had to be replaced at the end of the tenancy. I am not more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence and this claim is dismissed.
The associated claim for replacement trays and door pins for the Smeg oven is also dismissed. The landlord chose to install a new oven, which means the replacement parts for the Smeg were not needed. Roman blinds
The landlord is claiming the cost of replacing broken roman blinds. The landlord said the blinds were four or five years old at the end of the tenancy. Some of the blinds were hard to use during the tenancy and the landlord gave the tenants special instructions on how to unsnag the blinds so they could be used each day. The landlord conceded that the roman blinds were a poor design and they were replaced with curtains.
In reply the tenants agreed that the blinds were problematic throughout the tenancy. They were hard to get up and down and they fell off the Velcro attaching them to the window frame. The tenants removed some of the blinds because of the problems.
I am not persuaded the landlord has proved there was careless or intentional damage. It seems most likely to me the blinds needed to be replaced because they could not be used in a usual manner. This claim is dismissed. Damage to walls
The landlord has claimed $900 to repair and paint damage to the walls. He has provided photos in support of his claim. The tenants agreed that they were responsible for two knee sized dents in the walls by the stairs, which happened - at different times - when a tenant and a guest slipped and fell on the stairs. The tenants said they were not aware of the large dent in the wall in the lounge. They said a mirror they had blue tacked to a wall in the lounge fell off the heater it was resting on and ripped a small hole in the plaster. They said any other dents and chips in the wall paint were fair wear and tear.
I have considered the photos and the submissions. I find the knee dents to be damage that happened after accidents. Tenants are not required to pay for accidental damage. The photo of the large dent in the lounge was taken a month after the tenancy ended, and therefore does not prove this damage was present at the end of the tenancy. It seems most likely to me that all the other damage that I have seen in the photos is the result of fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. Tiles
There is a claim to replace the tiles in the entrance hallway because there was one broken tile at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is claiming $500, which is the insurance excess stated in the tenancy agreement. The landlord has not made an insurance claim. The tenants said they do not know how the tile cracked, but it was fully functional and the crack was barely noticeable. They pointed out that the landlord has not provided a photo showing the crack from a distance, so I cannot see how unnoticeable it was.
It seems most likely to me the damage happened during the tenancy. Without better photos I cannot see that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. I am not persuaded by the landlord’s submission and this claim is dismissed. French door
The landlord has claimed the cost of repairing the french door. He repaired the frame in two places and painted over the repair. I have been provided with photos. The invoices and the amount of time claimed seem reasonable to me. The tenants agreed the frame was damaged during the tenancy but they are not sure how. They said they thought the damage could have come from someone standing on the frame. I have considered the evidence and in particular the photos provided by the landlord. I find the damage was more than fair wear and tear and was most likely careless or intentional damage. This claim is proved and allowed. Ventilation system
The landlord has claimed the cost of replacing ceiling vents which are part of the whole house ventilation system. He said the tenants tampered with these during the tenancy and the vents are now looser and wobble if you touch them. The tenant said they only touched the vents when it was necessary to screw them closed because cold air was blowing into the rooms. In reply, the landlord said the ventilation system was designed to prevent condensation, and to do that it was necessary, on occasions, for cold air to blow through the vents with the intention of lowering the room temperature, thus preventing condensation.
I find the tenants acted reasonably when they screwed the vents closed. I can see from the emails that they tried very hard during the tenancy to come to a solution that would prevent cold air blowing into the lounge and into the bedrooms while they were trying to sleep. It seems unusual to me that the landlord could not find a solution that would protect the tenants from draughts. I find any loosening of the vents was fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. Vanity
The landlord has claimed the cost of hinges and time to repair the vanity door. I have seen photos. The tenants said they used the vanity in the usual way and the wear and tear is fair. I have considered the evidence and the submissions. It seems most likely to me the marks on the door and the hinge replacement are because of fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. Shower door
There is a claim for the cost of treating the shower doors with a protector product and replacing some hinge covers. The landlord said the new shower door had the protective coating at the start of the tenancy. The tenants said the shower door was completely functional at the end of the tenancy and any scratches were fair wear and tear. I have seen the photos. The landlord has to expect that the new shower will be showing signs of use at the end of a three year tenancy. I do not find the landlord has proved there was damage greater than fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. Smoke alarms
The landlord has claimed the cost of replacing two smoke alarms the tenants took down during the tenancy. The tenants said the alarms would go off randomly and the landlord did not seem motivated to replace the alarms. They took two alarms down to make it easier to turn them off. This was reported to the landlord in July 2024. The landlord inspected and two broken alarms were replaced. I find the tenants should not have taken the smoke alarms down. However, I am not persuaded the tenants carelessly or intentionally damaged the smoke alarms. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The landlord’s application for suppression is allowed because the landlord is the most successful party. The tenants’ names will be published because there is public interest when tenants have to pay compensation. See section 95A RTA.
The bond refund will be split between the parties and a request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5246751 — Property damage at Unit/Flat c, 148 Aro Street, Aro Valley, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5246751 — Property damage at Unit/Flat c, 148 Aro Street, Aro Valley, Wellington 6021

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