How much money was awarded in case 5277779?

Quinovic Riccarton: $189.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277779?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12529924-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5277779?

Quinovic Riccarton: $189.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277779?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277779?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12529924-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat B, 57 Frankleigh Street, Somerfield, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5277779 — Mould & damp

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277779 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Quintessential Property Management Limited Trading As

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277779. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Quinovic Riccarton	$189.75		Quinovic Riccarton
Bond	$2,000.00

[The tenant/s] to pay Quintessential Property Management Limited Trading As Quinovic Riccarton $189.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (6472831-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Quintessential Property Management Limited Trading As Quinovic Riccarton: $189.75 [The tenant/s]: $1,810.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

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

The tenancy started on 25 November 2022 and ended on 20 December 2024. The premises were new at the beginning of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.

The landlord is claiming $189.75 for damage to the paint in the garage and $1,709.36 for damage to the benchtop in the kitchen.

The tenant does not dispute damaging the paint in the garage, and she says that she communicated her acceptance of responsibility to the property manager at the end of the tenancy. Because this damage has never been disputed the order is made by consent of the tenant.

The damage to the benchtop involves the narrow strip of the bench directly in front of the sink. Between the top of the bench and the front face of the bench is a seam through which it appears water has entered, causing the bench to swell and crack the finishing product of the bench.

The landlord sought to have the bench replaced by making an insurance claim. The insurance assessor stated that the damage appears to have been gradual, and on that basis the insurance claim was declined. The landlord said that the insurance assessor and a builder who also assessed the damage both said the damage may have been caused by the tenant leaving a damp cloth over the front of the bench.

The tenant stated that she disputes causing the damage as she did not leave a damp cloth over the front of the bench, and as of the end of the tenancy she had not even noticed the damage.

The claim that the damage was caused by a damp cloth hanging over the front of the bench is speculative. That is to say, there is no information that supports this claim. Whereas it may have been the case, the tenant denies it is the case, and there is no reason that arose in the hearing for me to doubt the tenant’s likelihood of telling the truth. I am not persuaded that a cloth was left on the bench.

The area in question is a wet area. It is likely that whenever the sink is used water may splash onto the area in question, and I would not consider this to be carelessness; I would consider this to be fair use of the wash up area.

The seam on the bench appears to have failed to perform the function that is required of it, that is, to keep water from reaching the product that the bench is made of, which degrades quickly once exposed to water. Even if a damp cloth had been left on the bench, I would not be persuaded that this is careless use by the tenant.

In this case the tenant has satisfied me that her use of the bench was not careless. I must therefore find the claim not proved.

Because the only claim that I am ordering was agreed by the tenant before the landlord made their application to the Tribunal, the landlord has not succeeded in any disputed claim today. On that basis I decline to order the reimbursement of the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277779. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Quinovic Riccarton	$189.75		Quinovic Riccarton
Bond	$2,000.00

[The tenant/s] to pay Quintessential Property Management Limited Trading As Quinovic Riccarton $189.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

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

The tenancy started on 25 November 2022 and ended on 20 December 2024. The premises were new at the beginning of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord is claiming $189.75 for damage to the paint in the garage and $1,709.36 for damage to the benchtop in the kitchen.

The tenant stated that she disputes causing the damage as she did not leave a damp cloth over the front of the bench, and as of the end of the tenancy she had not even noticed the damage.

In this case the tenant has satisfied me that her use of the bench was not careless. I must therefore find the claim not proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277779 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat B, 57 Frankleigh Street, Somerfield, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277779 — Mould & damp at Unit/Flat B, 57 Frankleigh Street, Somerfield, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions