What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286679 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 5286679?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286679?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12350981-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286679 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 5286679?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286679?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286679?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12350981-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

106 Centaurus Road, Huntsbury, Christchurch 8022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5286679 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
Holmwood Real Estate Limited - As Agent For Jill Champion-Torrance must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being the application filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and refund of the bond. This claim was settled before the hearing.
The parties want me to decide two claims for compensation following the end of the tenancy and the refund of the bond.

Should the tenant pay to remove garden waste?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This includes the gardens. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
There is a claim for over $300 for clearing green waste from behind the garage. The RTA does not require the gardens to be provided or returned in an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonable, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
I have seen photos taken by the landlord and the gardener at the end of the tenancy. The photos show a lot of ivy, some grass clippings, and some old tree branches. The tenant agreed the clippings and branches were from the garden, but pointed out that the photos also show that a lot of the ivy was removed.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. There are no photos from the start of the tenancy, which was in 2014. The property condition report from the time states:
The ivy was an intentional feature in 2014. The tenant said she had never been asked to remove or trim the ivy. There is no way from the photos and the invoice that I can differentiate between gardening work done to remove the ivy and the cost of time of removing the small pile of lawn clippings and branches. I find the landlord has not proved this claim and it is dismissed.

Should the tenant pay for replacement flooring?

There is a claim for almost $1,000 to replace some of the kitchen flooring because of scratches.
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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The flooring was new in 2022. The landlord submitted the damage was more than fair wear and tear because there should be no damage on a new floor, and tenants should be held responsible for any damage they cause. The tenant said she did not notice the scratches and she mopped the floor before she left. They were not there during the tenancy.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. Having considered the photos it seems most likely to me the scratches were fair wear and tear. This is because they are surface scratches in a localised area, rather than gouges. Landlords have to expect there will be marks and scratches on new kitchen floors over time. The landlord has not proved there was careless or intentional damage and this claim is dismissed. Other orders
I have sent a request to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
I have used my discretion to allow suppression for the tenant because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because the landlord is not the most successful party. See section 95A

RTA

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
Holmwood Real Estate Limited - As Agent For Jill Champion-Torrance must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being the application filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and refund of the bond. This claim was settled before the hearing.
The parties want me to decide two claims for compensation following the end of the tenancy and the refund of the bond.

Should the tenant pay to remove garden waste?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. This includes the gardens. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
There is a claim for over $300 for clearing green waste from behind the garage. The RTA does not require the gardens to be provided or returned in an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonable, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
I have seen photos taken by the landlord and the gardener at the end of the tenancy. The photos show a lot of ivy, some grass clippings, and some old tree branches. The tenant agreed the clippings and branches were from the garden, but pointed out that the photos also show that a lot of the ivy was removed.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. There are no photos from the start of the tenancy, which was in 2014. The property condition report from the time states:
The ivy was an intentional feature in 2014. The tenant said she had never been asked to remove or trim the ivy. There is no way from the photos and the invoice that I can differentiate between gardening work done to remove the ivy and the cost of time of removing the small pile of lawn clippings and branches. I find the landlord has not proved this claim and it is dismissed.

Should the tenant pay for replacement flooring?

There is a claim for almost $1,000 to replace some of the kitchen flooring because of scratches.
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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The flooring was new in 2022. The landlord submitted the damage was more than fair wear and tear because there should be no damage on a new floor, and tenants should be held responsible for any damage they cause. The tenant said she did not notice the scratches and she mopped the floor before she left. They were not there during the tenancy.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. Having considered the photos it seems most likely to me the scratches were fair wear and tear. This is because they are surface scratches in a localised area, rather than gouges. Landlords have to expect there will be marks and scratches on new kitchen floors over time. The landlord has not proved there was careless or intentional damage and this claim is dismissed. Other orders
I have sent a request to the Bond Centre.
Because the tenant has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
I have used my discretion to allow suppression for the tenant because she is the most successful party. The landlord’s application for suppression is not allowed because the landlord is not the most successful party. See section 95A

Tenancy Tribunal case 5286679 — Rent arrears at 106 Centaurus Road, Huntsbury, Christchurch 8022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5286679 — Rent arrears at 106 Centaurus Road, Huntsbury, Christchurch 8022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant pay to remove garden waste?

Should the tenant pay for replacement flooring?

RTA

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenant pay to remove garden waste?

Should the tenant pay for replacement flooring?

RTA

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions