What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5252421 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The party] $607.00

How much money was awarded in case 5252421?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $580.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5252421?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5252421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12314908-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5252421 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The party] $607.00

How much money was awarded in case 5252421?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $580.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5252421?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5252421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12314908-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24A Brill Road, RD 5, Te Awamutu 3875 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5252421 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5252421 — net $607.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Laundry/ storage floor repairs	$580.00	Laundry/ storage floor repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$607.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$607.00

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

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

The tenant had a hobby involving the repair of machinery. There is some dispute about whether or not it was conducted as a business. That doesn’t really matter for the Tribunal’s consideration of these claims. The point is that the tenant’s hobby meant that oil stains were caused to the walls and concrete floor in the laundry/ storage area, that would not have been caused by fair wear and tear from ordinary use of the premises.

The tenant accepted that he should pay to have those stains cleaned. The property manager at the time got a quote and the tenant paid $171.14 for that cleaning work (and some other sums) from the bond, before the balance of the bond was released to him.

After that initial cleaning, the owners Mr and Mrs Brown felt that the oil stains had not been sufficiently dealt with. They got one quote for $1,228.00 to clean and seal the floor. They then got another quote for $580.00 which they accepted.

After the work was done, the owners decided that painting the floor was necessary to cover the stains. They had that additional work done at their cost and are not claiming compensation for that work from the tenant. Finding

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.

There is no dispute that the tenant is responsible for some staining of the floor and walls. The tenant says however that: a. he has already paid for the cleaning though the bond deduction and the owners should not now be able to bring another claim for the same thing; b. the owners are seeking to improve the premises at his cost.

In some circumstances, release of a bond to a tenant amounts to a promise that all claims against the tenant have been satisfied, making it unfair to allow further claims to be brought.

Here, where it was difficult to be certain about what would be required to deal with the stains and also because there is no evidence that the tenant has changed his position relying on the bond release, I do not find that the owners should be prevented from seeking further compensation.

The photographic evidence shows that the first clean, paid for by the tenant, did not adequately deal with the staining for which the tenant was responsible. As a result, the owners have incurred a loss, which is proved by the invoice provided. It would be unjust to deny them compensation for that loss.

I am satisfied that the owners have taken reasonable steps to mitigate the compensation claimed and that allowing this claim will not result in improvement of the property at the tenant’s cost.

The landlords also claim $2,000.00 as compensation for impacts on the use and enjoyment of their property from the commercial activities carried out by the tenant. The loss is not proved and there is no evidence of the owners or the property manager having notified the tenant that they believed he was breaching the agreement and causing harm, and asking him to stop. That would be a necessary first step. That claim is dismissed.

Because [The landlord/s], [The party] have partially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5252421 — net $607.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Laundry/ storage floor repairs	$580.00	Laundry/ storage floor repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$607.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$607.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] and [The party] $607.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenant had a hobby involving the repair of machinery. There is some dispute about whether or not it was conducted as a business. That doesn’t really matter for the Tribunal’s consideration of these claims. The point is that the tenant’s hobby meant that oil stains were caused to the walls and concrete floor in the laundry/ storage area, that would not have been caused by fair wear and tear from ordinary use of the premises.
The tenant accepted that he should pay to have those stains cleaned. The property manager at the time got a quote and the tenant paid $171.14 for that cleaning work (and some other sums) from the bond, before the balance of the bond was released to him.
After that initial cleaning, the owners Mr and Mrs Brown felt that the oil stains had not been sufficiently dealt with. They got one quote for $1,228.00 to clean and seal the floor. They then got another quote for $580.00 which they accepted.
After the work was done, the owners decided that painting the floor was necessary to cover the stains. They had that additional work done at their cost and are not claiming compensation for that work from the tenant. Finding
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.
There is no dispute that the tenant is responsible for some staining of the floor and walls. The tenant says however that: a. he has already paid for the cleaning though the bond deduction and the owners should not now be able to bring another claim for the same thing; b. the owners are seeking to improve the premises at his cost.
In some circumstances, release of a bond to a tenant amounts to a promise that all claims against the tenant have been satisfied, making it unfair to allow further claims to be brought.
Here, where it was difficult to be certain about what would be required to deal with the stains and also because there is no evidence that the tenant has changed his position relying on the bond release, I do not find that the owners should be prevented from seeking further compensation.
The photographic evidence shows that the first clean, paid for by the tenant, did not adequately deal with the staining for which the tenant was responsible. As a result, the owners have incurred a loss, which is proved by the invoice provided. It would be unjust to deny them compensation for that loss.
I am satisfied that the owners have taken reasonable steps to mitigate the compensation claimed and that allowing this claim will not result in improvement of the property at the tenant’s cost.
The landlords also claim $2,000.00 as compensation for impacts on the use and enjoyment of their property from the commercial activities carried out by the tenant. The loss is not proved and there is no evidence of the owners or the property manager having notified the tenant that they believed he was breaching the agreement and causing harm, and asking him to stop. That would be a necessary first step. That claim is dismissed.
Because [The landlord/s], [The party] have partially succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5252421 — Property damage at 24A Brill Road, RD 5, Te Awamutu 3875

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5252421 — Property damage at 24A Brill Road, RD 5, Te Awamutu 3875

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions