How much money was awarded in case 5299319?

Property Damage: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299319?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299319?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12591413-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5299319?

Property Damage: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299319?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299319?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12591413-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

79 Clarks Beach Road, Clarks Beach, Clarks Beach 2122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5299319 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299319 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Cirone Limited T/A: Onecall

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5299319 — net $690.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wall repairs and paint	$690.00	Wall repairs and paint
Net award	$690.00
Bond	$1,698.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$690.00

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Cirone Limited T/A: Onecall Property Management $690.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,698.54 (6494213-010) immediately apportioned as follows: Cirone Limited T/A: Onecall Property Management Melody Yin: $690.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,008.54

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] was unable to attend as he was at work. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] confirmed that she was representing them both at the hearing. She was unable to log into the video hearing, so appeared by telephone. Ms Melody Yin appeared for the landlord party by video link.

The parties attended mediation and agreed on a resolution to the rent and water rates arrears being deducted from the $2,800.00 held by the Bond Centre. $1,101.46 was paid from the bond to the landlord and $1,698.54 of the bond has remained in the Bond Centre pending the outcome of today’s hearing.

The tenants applied for refund of the $1,698.54 remainder of their bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. They disagree with the landlord that they are responsible for the cost of repairing the walls from the damage that occurred when the 3M command hooks were removed from the walls at the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenants confirm that they asked the landlord’s permission to hang things on the walls throughout the house.

In accordance with s42A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord gave consent to the tenants to use 3M command hooks to hang their pictures and asked that they did not use picture hooks as these made holes in the walls. The tenants complied with this condition, purchased 3M command hooks and hung pictures throughout the house.

At the end of the tenancy, the landlord asked the tenants to remove these 3M command hooks and expected that the walls would be left undamaged on their removal. The tenants say that the paint was thin and that is why the paint lifted when the hooks were removed and that they should not be held responsible for the damage.

Section 42(6) of the RTA states “If, on removing any fixture, the tenant causes any damage to the premises, the tenant must inform the landlord immediately and, at the landlord’s option, either repair the damage or compensate the landlord for any reasonable expenses incurred by the landlord in repairing the damage”.

When placing any minor fixture on a wall, a tenant is taking a risk that the removal of the fixture(s) may cause some damage, for which they are liable. There is no guarantee that 3M command hooks will not cause damage to paint, only that they are likely to cause less damage than making holes in the walls with picture hooks. The surface damage done by a 3M command hook is faster and cheaper to fill, sand and repaint than the damage done by deeper holes caused by ordinary picture hooks.

The tenants chose to hang pictures on walls throughout the house. The landlord was entitled to request that these all be removed at the end of the tenancy and the walls be reinstated to the condition they were prior to the pictures being hung on the walls.

Pursuant to section 42(6) of the RTA, I find the tenants to be responsible for the reasonable costs incurred by the landlord having the paint damage sanded and filled where necessary and then repainted.

The tenants’ application to have all the remainder of their bond refunded to them is therefore dismissed. The $690.00 painting and preparation/treatment costs are to be deducted from the bond that remains in the Bond Centre and the balance to be paid to the tenants. Reimbursement of filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.

Because the tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claim I dismiss their claim for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression

The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Because the tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded with any of their claims, I dismiss their application for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5299319 — net $690.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Wall repairs and paint	$690.00	Wall repairs and paint
Net award	$690.00
Bond	$1,698.54
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$690.00

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Cirone Limited T/A: Onecall Property Management $690.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,698.54 (6494213-010) immediately apportioned as follows: Cirone Limited T/A: Onecall Property Management Melody Yin: $690.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $1,008.54

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] was unable to attend as he was at work. [The tenant/s] tenant/s] confirmed that she was representing them both at the hearing. She was unable to log into the video hearing, so appeared by telephone. Ms Melody Yin appeared for the landlord party by video link.
The parties attended mediation and agreed on a resolution to the rent and water rates arrears being deducted from the $2,800.00 held by the Bond Centre. $1,101.46 was paid from the bond to the landlord and $1,698.54 of the bond has remained in the Bond Centre pending the outcome of today’s hearing.
The tenants applied for refund of the $1,698.54 remainder of their bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. They disagree with the landlord that they are responsible for the cost of repairing the walls from the damage that occurred when the 3M command hooks were removed from the walls at the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenants confirm that they asked the landlord’s permission to hang things on the walls throughout the house.
In accordance with s42A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the landlord gave consent to the tenants to use 3M command hooks to hang their pictures and asked that they did not use picture hooks as these made holes in the walls. The tenants complied with this condition, purchased 3M command hooks and hung pictures throughout the house.
At the end of the tenancy, the landlord asked the tenants to remove these 3M command hooks and expected that the walls would be left undamaged on their removal. The tenants say that the paint was thin and that is why the paint lifted when the hooks were removed and that they should not be held responsible for the damage.
Section 42(6) of the RTA states “If, on removing any fixture, the tenant causes any damage to the premises, the tenant must inform the landlord immediately and, at the landlord’s option, either repair the damage or compensate the landlord for any reasonable expenses incurred by the landlord in repairing the damage”.
When placing any minor fixture on a wall, a tenant is taking a risk that the removal of the fixture(s) may cause some damage, for which they are liable. There is no guarantee that 3M command hooks will not cause damage to paint, only that they are likely to cause less damage than making holes in the walls with picture hooks. The surface damage done by a 3M command hook is faster and cheaper to fill, sand and repaint than the damage done by deeper holes caused by ordinary picture hooks.
The tenants chose to hang pictures on walls throughout the house. The landlord was entitled to request that these all be removed at the end of the tenancy and the walls be reinstated to the condition they were prior to the pictures being hung on the walls.
Pursuant to section 42(6) of the RTA, I find the tenants to be responsible for the reasonable costs incurred by the landlord having the paint damage sanded and filled where necessary and then repainted.
The tenants’ application to have all the remainder of their bond refunded to them is therefore dismissed. The $690.00 painting and preparation/treatment costs are to be deducted from the bond that remains in the Bond Centre and the balance to be paid to the tenants. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because the tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded with their claim I dismiss their claim for reimbursement of the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Because the tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded with any of their claims, I dismiss their application for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299319 — Property damage at 79 Clarks Beach Road, Clarks Beach, Clarks Beach 2122

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299319 — Property damage at 79 Clarks Beach Road, Clarks Beach, Clarks Beach 2122

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.