What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300430 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Prestige Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5300430?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $235.64 awarded to landlord; Skirting: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $387.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300430?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300430?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12519926-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300430 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Prestige Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 5300430?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Carpet: $125.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $235.64 awarded to landlord; Skirting: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $387.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300430?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300430?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12519926-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

14 Clontarf Lane, Belfast, Christchurch 8051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300430 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300430 — net $1,425.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Carpet	$125.00	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Painting	$235.64	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Vinyl	$387.00	Repairs: Vinyl
Repairs: Skirting	$650.00	Repairs: Skirting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,425.64
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,425.64

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Prestige Property Management Limited As Agent For C & J Fowler as Trustees of the Waipapa 5 Family Trust $1,425.64 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (6139705-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Prestige Property Management Limited As Agent For C & J Fowler as Trustee of the Waipapa 5 Family Trust Trustees C &J Fowler: $1,425.64 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $934.36

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The tenants have applied for reimbursement of the bond.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end 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 claimed the cost of repairs to carpet ($125.00), paint work ($235.64), vinyl ($387.00) and a skirting board repair ($650.00 insurance excess). The tenants accepted the vinyl repairs but disputed the other claims. The tenants say that the “damage” was reasonable wear and tear which occurred during ordinary use of the premises.

The premises were new at the start of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs from the end of the tenancy and receipts, invoices and quotes from repairs.

The tenant acknowledged that it had caused a burn mark in the living room carpet but says that the landlord was not charged for that repair. The tenant claims that the receipt the landlord relies on was to shave the top off a section of carpet to remove some small bright red stains. The tenant says the stains were barely visible and would have occurred during normal use of the premises.

The red stains were caused during the tenancy. While some staining or marks can occur with normal use of the premises, this colour is distinctive. I find that it is damage, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord’s repair solution was reasonable and cost effective. I award the amount claimed of $125.00.

The landlord claimed for paint “touch ups”. The tenants say that the paintwork in this new dwelling was of such poor quality that damage was inevitable. They say that any painting required was the result of fair wear and tear. The description “touch ups” suggested minor work as a result of normal wear and tear. However, the photographs show that the landlord has only claimed for damage where paint has been removed or the wall has been dented or gouged. I find that damage has occurred during the tenancy and the landlord’s repair costs are reasonable. I award the amount claimed.

The landlord also claimed the cost of an insurance excess for repairs to a damaged skirting board in the laundry. The tenants claim the damage occurred behind their drier, which they used in the normal way, and they used the extraction fan in the laundry when the drier was on. They said that the landlord did not tell them that they should have used a “condenser” drier in the laundry. I find that damage has occurred. I also find that the tenant’s drier should have been externally vented when it was in use but was not. Damage has occurred and the tenants did not disproved liability. I award reimbursement of the landlord’s insurance excess.

The amounts ordered are proved. The bond is to be refunded to the parties in the proportions set out in Order 2 above.

As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300430 — net $1,425.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Carpet	$125.00	Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Painting	$235.64	Repairs: Painting
Repairs: Vinyl	$387.00	Repairs: Vinyl
Repairs: Skirting	$650.00	Repairs: Skirting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,425.64
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,425.64

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay Prestige Property Management Limited As Agent For C & J Fowler as Trustees of the Waipapa 5 Family Trust $1,425.64 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 (6139705-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Prestige Property Management Limited As Agent For C & J Fowler as Trustee of the Waipapa 5 Family Trust Trustees C &J Fowler: $1,425.64 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $934.36

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The tenants have applied for reimbursement of the bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end 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 claimed the cost of repairs to carpet ($125.00), paint work ($235.64), vinyl ($387.00) and a skirting board repair ($650.00 insurance excess). The tenants accepted the vinyl repairs but disputed the other claims. The tenants say that the “damage” was reasonable wear and tear which occurred during ordinary use of the premises.
The premises were new at the start of the tenancy. The landlord provided photographs from the end of the tenancy and receipts, invoices and quotes from repairs.
The tenant acknowledged that it had caused a burn mark in the living room carpet but says that the landlord was not charged for that repair. The tenant claims that the receipt the landlord relies on was to shave the top off a section of carpet to remove some small bright red stains. The tenant says the stains were barely visible and would have occurred during normal use of the premises.
The red stains were caused during the tenancy. While some staining or marks can occur with normal use of the premises, this colour is distinctive. I find that it is damage, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord’s repair solution was reasonable and cost effective. I award the amount claimed of $125.00.
The landlord claimed for paint “touch ups”. The tenants say that the paintwork in this new dwelling was of such poor quality that damage was inevitable. They say that any painting required was the result of fair wear and tear. The description “touch ups” suggested minor work as a result of normal wear and tear. However, the photographs show that the landlord has only claimed for damage where paint has been removed or the wall has been dented or gouged. I find that damage has occurred during the tenancy and the landlord’s repair costs are reasonable. I award the amount claimed.
The landlord also claimed the cost of an insurance excess for repairs to a damaged skirting board in the laundry. The tenants claim the damage occurred behind their drier, which they used in the normal way, and they used the extraction fan in the laundry when the drier was on. They said that the landlord did not tell them that they should have used a “condenser” drier in the laundry. I find that damage has occurred. I also find that the tenant’s drier should have been externally vented when it was in use but was not. Damage has occurred and the tenants did not disproved liability. I award reimbursement of the landlord’s insurance excess.
The amounts ordered are proved. The bond is to be refunded to the parties in the proportions set out in Order 2 above.
As the landlord was the successful party, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300430 — Property damage at 14 Clontarf Lane, Belfast, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300430 — Property damage at 14 Clontarf Lane, Belfast, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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