What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5271560 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5271560?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5271560?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5271560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12294967-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5271560 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5271560?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $50.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5271560?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5271560?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12294967-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Grey Street, Waitara 4320 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5271560 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5271560 — net $23.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$50.00		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$50.00	$27.00
Net award	$23.00
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$23.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Delta Property Management Limited As Agent For Jay Mura Tim Biesiek $23.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Delta Property Management Limited As Agent For Jay Mura Tim Biesiek $23.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,977.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted by phone. The landlord was represented by the property manager, Mr Besiek.
There is a dispute about the bond of $2,000 following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has declined to sign the bond over to [the tenants], because he has a quote for repairs totalling $2,672.63.
The tenants have filed an application for an order that the Bond Centre release the bond to them.
The tenants do not accept responsibility for the following damage: a. Marks on a bedroom wall. b. Dent/hole in kitchen door.
There is a hole in the fibrelight cement panel at the base of an outside wall. The tenants acknowledge that it was likely caused by a weed eater used by the person they paid to mow the lawns.
[The tenants] attended the exit inspection with the property manager and none of these matters was raised with them. They were told that everything was fine.
Mr Besiek agreed that he had not noticed these issues until he attended a further inspection with the owner, who pointed them out.
Mr Besiek said that the property has been placed on the market for sale. He did not know if the repairs had been undertaken. He had not invoices or receipts for work done.
The onus of proof is on the landlord and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
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.
The issues are: a. Did the damage in each case occur during the tenancy? b. Did the tenants or someone who was at the tenancy with their permission cause the damage? c. If yes, how much compensation should be paid? Kitchen door
The landlord has provided a photo of the kitchen door which has a dent/hole in it. The door surface has been damaged, and I am satisfied that it is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants were not aware of the dent in the kitchen door. At first they said that it was not there at the end of the tenancy, but they have now been told that it was there all along, but they had not noticed it. Someone told them that the owner’s daughter had caused it. That is hearsay.
The landlord provided photographs of the entry inspection. There is no evidence of the hole in the door in the entry inspection photographs.
The exit photographs were taken two days after the tenants moved out. This issue was not raised with the tenants at the exit inspection. The purpose of having the tenants present is to go through the property together and discuss any issues. On that basis, the landlord has not established on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused during the tenancy.
However, the tenants agree that the damage was present during their tenancy (rather than arguing that it occurred after the exit inspection). Based on the comparison of the photographs, I find it is more than not that the damage did occur during the tenancy.
However, the landlord has not established a loss that requires compensation. Only a quote has been provided. The house is on the market and there is no evidence that he has had the door repaired.
Therefore I make no order for compensation for damage to the kitchen door. Bedroom wall
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to bedroom wall. The damage is some black marks on the wall.
The tenant says that the marks were there when they moved in and she took a photo of them. She said it looks as though someone had broken a pen and it had splattered on the wall.
The landlord agrees it looks like that or nail polish.
The landlord says that the marks on the wall are not evident in the entry photos.
The entry inspection describes the walls as being in “good condition” This is despite the fact that the photos in the report show a scrape on the wall entering the bedroom, an area of about 2 ft by 1ft of pink marks dripping down one wall, an area showing about 6 black marks on another wall, and 11 round stickers on another wall.
It is not clear that the entry inspection shows the wall in question. The landlord has not established that the damage occurred during the tenancy. Even if it had, it is difficult to distinguish it from previous damage. In addition, there is no evidence that the landlord has had the wall painted, and so the landlord has not proved a loss. The landlord has not established this claim. Outside wall
The tenants accept that the small hole to the baseboard outside is likely as the result of a weedeater and that it occurred during their tenancy and by someone who was there with their consent.
The quote provided by the landlord was $1,314.03 plus GST to cut out the section of fibre cement baseboard and replace it as well as supplying and installing a new internal door. A further $930 plus GST was quoted to paint the door, the fibrelight and the internal wall.
The tenants provided photographs of the area, taken since they moved out. Those images show that the area has been patched up with a small piece of ventilation grill, which the tenant says costs about $25.00 at Mitre 10.
Once again, the landlord has not established that they have incurred a loss of more than that.
I have therefore decided that $50.00 is more than reasonable compensation for the cost of the ventilation grill and labour to screw it in.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5271560 — net $23.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$50.00		Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement		$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$50.00	$27.00
Net award	$23.00
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$23.00

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Delta Property Management Limited As Agent For Jay Mura Tim Biesiek $23.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Delta Property Management Limited As Agent For Jay Mura Tim Biesiek $23.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,977.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted by phone. The landlord was represented by the property manager, Mr Besiek.
There is a dispute about the bond of $2,000 following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has declined to sign the bond over to [the tenants], because he has a quote for repairs totalling $2,672.63.
The tenants have filed an application for an order that the Bond Centre release the bond to them.
The tenants do not accept responsibility for the following damage: a. Marks on a bedroom wall. b. Dent/hole in kitchen door.
There is a hole in the fibrelight cement panel at the base of an outside wall. The tenants acknowledge that it was likely caused by a weed eater used by the person they paid to mow the lawns.
[The tenants] attended the exit inspection with the property manager and none of these matters was raised with them. They were told that everything was fine.
Mr Besiek agreed that he had not noticed these issues until he attended a further inspection with the owner, who pointed them out.
Mr Besiek said that the property has been placed on the market for sale. He did not know if the repairs had been undertaken. He had not invoices or receipts for work done.
The onus of proof is on the landlord and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
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.
The issues are: a. Did the damage in each case occur during the tenancy? b. Did the tenants or someone who was at the tenancy with their permission cause the damage? c. If yes, how much compensation should be paid? Kitchen door
The landlord has provided a photo of the kitchen door which has a dent/hole in it. The door surface has been damaged, and I am satisfied that it is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenants were not aware of the dent in the kitchen door. At first they said that it was not there at the end of the tenancy, but they have now been told that it was there all along, but they had not noticed it. Someone told them that the owner’s daughter had caused it. That is hearsay.
The landlord provided photographs of the entry inspection. There is no evidence of the hole in the door in the entry inspection photographs.
The exit photographs were taken two days after the tenants moved out. This issue was not raised with the tenants at the exit inspection. The purpose of having the tenants present is to go through the property together and discuss any issues. On that basis, the landlord has not established on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused during the tenancy.
However, the tenants agree that the damage was present during their tenancy (rather than arguing that it occurred after the exit inspection). Based on the comparison of the photographs, I find it is more than not that the damage did occur during the tenancy.
However, the landlord has not established a loss that requires compensation. Only a quote has been provided. The house is on the market and there is no evidence that he has had the door repaired.
Therefore I make no order for compensation for damage to the kitchen door. Bedroom wall
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to bedroom wall. The damage is some black marks on the wall.
The tenant says that the marks were there when they moved in and she took a photo of them. She said it looks as though someone had broken a pen and it had splattered on the wall.
The landlord agrees it looks like that or nail polish.
The landlord says that the marks on the wall are not evident in the entry photos.
The entry inspection describes the walls as being in “good condition” This is despite the fact that the photos in the report show a scrape on the wall entering the bedroom, an area of about 2 ft by 1ft of pink marks dripping down one wall, an area showing about 6 black marks on another wall, and 11 round stickers on another wall.
It is not clear that the entry inspection shows the wall in question. The landlord has not established that the damage occurred during the tenancy. Even if it had, it is difficult to distinguish it from previous damage. In addition, there is no evidence that the landlord has had the wall painted, and so the landlord has not proved a loss. The landlord has not established this claim. Outside wall
The tenants accept that the small hole to the baseboard outside is likely as the result of a weedeater and that it occurred during their tenancy and by someone who was there with their consent.
The quote provided by the landlord was $1,314.03 plus GST to cut out the section of fibre cement baseboard and replace it as well as supplying and installing a new internal door. A further $930 plus GST was quoted to paint the door, the fibrelight and the internal wall.
The tenants provided photographs of the area, taken since they moved out. Those images show that the area has been patched up with a small piece of ventilation grill, which the tenant says costs about $25.00 at Mitre 10.
Once again, the landlord has not established that they have incurred a loss of more than that.
I have therefore decided that $50.00 is more than reasonable compensation for the cost of the ventilation grill and labour to screw it in.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5271560 — Property damage at 5 Grey Street, Waitara 4320

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5271560 — Property damage at 5 Grey Street, Waitara 4320

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