What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5255759 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 5255759?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5255759?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5255759?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12147518-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5255759 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 5255759?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5255759?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5255759?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12147518-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3A, 51 Webb Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5255759 — Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The applications are dismissed.
The Bond Centre must pay the bond of $1,000 to the tenants immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tribunal had the assistance of an interpreter. The landlord was represented by the property manager.
Both parties want the balance of the bond refunded. The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to a kitchen bench following the end of the tenancy. The tenants have claimed compensation for loss of amenity because of building work and scaffolding.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the bench?

There is a claim for $500, which is the insurance excess stated on the tenancy agreement, to allow the landlord to replace a kitchen bench in an apartment. The owner has moved back into the apartment. Two marks have been identified on the bench.
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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The photos taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy show one faint, round mark in a light colour. The landlord advised an insurance claim would be made for replacing the benchtop. A second, similar mark was identified by the owner a number of weeks after the end of the tenancy. I will not consider the second mark because there is no evidence it was there at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants provided me with photos. They brought a laptop to the hearing so I could examine the photos in detail. I cannot see the mark in the tenants’ photos. Their submission is that any mark was so faint that it was not noticeable, either at the start or at the end of the tenancy. They said they did not damage the bench during the tenancy.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means the landlord must provide me with evidence which shows the claim is more probable than not. I am not more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence. It seems the mark is so faint that it can only be photographed in a particular light and from a particular angle. It seems most likely to me that such a mark is either the result of fair wear and tear or was present at the start of the tenancy. The claim for the replacement benchtop is dismissed.

Should the landlord pay compensation because of a loss of amenity?

The tenants have claimed compensation in the amount of 30% of the rent paid from October 2024 to 14 April 2025 because of a loss of amenity. This is because there was scaffolding over the front of the apartment, including the deck. Construction workers were outside from early morning Monday to Friday, walking past the apartment. The tenants said they had to close their blinds to get privacy, and they could only use the balcony on weekends.
The landlord did not agree to the claim because the building work was obvious when the tenants moved in. Part of the building was already covered in scaffolding. The tenants never mentioned their discomfort during the tenancy. The claim for loss of amenity was filed late, after the parties could not reach a decision on the benchtop.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. They must have the better evidence to show the claim is more probable than not. While I accept the presence of scaffolding and construction workers would change the tenants use of the apartment, I am not persuaded I should allow compensation because: • there was already building work when the tenants moved in • the tenants could have asked about the building work when they viewed the apartment • I would have expected the tenants to raise their concerns during the tenancy if they were really affected by the scaffolding and construction work • It seems likely to me the claim is the result of the protracted bond dispute. The claim for loss of amenity is dismissed. Other orders
I have the jurisdiction to hear claims about issues that arose during the tenancy. The claims there was an abuse of power and for stress after the tenancy ended is outside of my jurisdiction. This claim is dismissed. See section 77(1) RTA.
Both parties should pay their own filing fee because they have had equal success.
The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to allow the costs of attending the hearing. See section 102 RTA.
Suppression is allowed for both parties because they have both successfully defended the applications and there is no breach of the RTA. See section 95A RTA.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details.
The applications are dismissed.
The Bond Centre must pay the bond of $1,000 to the tenants immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tribunal had the assistance of an interpreter. The landlord was represented by the property manager.
Both parties want the balance of the bond refunded. The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to a kitchen bench following the end of the tenancy. The tenants have claimed compensation for loss of amenity because of building work and scaffolding.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the bench?

There is a claim for $500, which is the insurance excess stated on the tenancy agreement, to allow the landlord to replace a kitchen bench in an apartment. The owner has moved back into the apartment. Two marks have been identified on the bench.
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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The photos taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy show one faint, round mark in a light colour. The landlord advised an insurance claim would be made for replacing the benchtop. A second, similar mark was identified by the owner a number of weeks after the end of the tenancy. I will not consider the second mark because there is no evidence it was there at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants provided me with photos. They brought a laptop to the hearing so I could examine the photos in detail. I cannot see the mark in the tenants’ photos. Their submission is that any mark was so faint that it was not noticeable, either at the start or at the end of the tenancy. They said they did not damage the bench during the tenancy.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means the landlord must provide me with evidence which shows the claim is more probable than not. I am not more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence. It seems the mark is so faint that it can only be photographed in a particular light and from a particular angle. It seems most likely to me that such a mark is either the result of fair wear and tear or was present at the start of the tenancy. The claim for the replacement benchtop is dismissed.

Should the landlord pay compensation because of a loss of amenity?

The tenants have claimed compensation in the amount of 30% of the rent paid from October 2024 to 14 April 2025 because of a loss of amenity. This is because there was scaffolding over the front of the apartment, including the deck. Construction workers were outside from early morning Monday to Friday, walking past the apartment. The tenants said they had to close their blinds to get privacy, and they could only use the balcony on weekends.
The landlord did not agree to the claim because the building work was obvious when the tenants moved in. Part of the building was already covered in scaffolding. The tenants never mentioned their discomfort during the tenancy. The claim for loss of amenity was filed late, after the parties could not reach a decision on the benchtop.
This is the tenants’ claim to prove. They must have the better evidence to show the claim is more probable than not. While I accept the presence of scaffolding and construction workers would change the tenants use of the apartment, I am not persuaded I should allow compensation because: • there was already building work when the tenants moved in • the tenants could have asked about the building work when they viewed the apartment • I would have expected the tenants to raise their concerns during the tenancy if they were really affected by the scaffolding and construction work • It seems likely to me the claim is the result of the protracted bond dispute. The claim for loss of amenity is dismissed. Other orders
I have the jurisdiction to hear claims about issues that arose during the tenancy. The claims there was an abuse of power and for stress after the tenancy ended is outside of my jurisdiction. This claim is dismissed. See section 77(1) RTA.
Both parties should pay their own filing fee because they have had equal success.
The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to allow the costs of attending the hearing. See section 102 RTA.
Suppression is allowed for both parties because they have both successfully defended the applications and there is no breach of the RTA. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5255759 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3A, 51 Webb Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5255759 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3A, 51 Webb Street, Mount Cook, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the bench?

Should the landlord pay compensation because of a loss of amenity?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the bench?

Should the landlord pay compensation because of a loss of amenity?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions