How much money was awarded in case 5313191?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313191?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12887272-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5313191?

Cleaning: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313191?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313191?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12887272-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Atlanta Grove, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5313191 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313191 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Doubletree

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313191 — net $725.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$350.00	Cleaning
Window repairs	$375.00	Window repairs
Net award	$725.00
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$725.00

[The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Doubletree Properties Limited $725.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 (3799246-007) immediately apportioned as follows: Doubletree Properties Limited: $725.00 [The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s]: $2,395.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, set down to be conducted via video conference. There was no entry into the conference by the tenants, nor any prior contact with the Registry. Calls to the tenants were attempted but unsuccessful. I was satisfied adequate service had completed and I continued with the hearing after the call went unanswered.

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

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord produced an invoice for $1,411.05 for cleaning and rubbish removal (including steam cleaning of carpet).

A careful comparison of the entry and exit photos took place via the Share function in the video conferencing application.

I was concerned to see items clearly present at commencement now claimed as rubbish of the tenants that incurred a cost to remove. I also could not align the effort claimed (21 hours) with the photos produced. I accept the need to some general cleaning with a focus on the fridge and bathrooms in particular.

Having considered the evidence I award $350.00 of the invoiced cost as reasonable compensation.

The amount ordered is proved.

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.

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.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

The window in the lounge was cracked during the tenancy and replaced by the landlord. The invoiced cost of $375.00 was supported by a photo of the damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.

The amount ordered is proved.

Two further repair/replacement claims are dismissed as unproven due to wear and tear considerations.

“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.

The first claim was for $897.00 for the replacement of stairway carpet and underlay. The carpet was dated at commencement and if anything, I would have expected the carpet to have been repaired or replaced during the tenancy as landlord maintenance. The wearing evidence was due to expected war and tear over the long life of the carpet in a high traffic area. It being a trip hazard during the tenancy was the first impression after viewing the photos.

The second claim was for $131.31, being the cost to replace a broken window latch. The photo provided fails to establish the damage as more than wear and tear. No other damage to the premises was evident after the tenancy and I am not satisfied it has been proven as more than likely careless or intentional damage by the tenants. Filing fee

Given the limited success of the applicant I make no order regarding the filing fee and that cost stays with the applicant. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has not been wholly or substantially successful, suppression is not ordered.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313191 — net $725.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$350.00	Cleaning
Window repairs	$375.00	Window repairs
Net award	$725.00
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$725.00

[The tenant/s] tenant/s], [The tenant/s] tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] to pay Doubletree Properties Limited $725.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

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

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The landlord produced an invoice for $1,411.05 for cleaning and rubbish removal (including steam cleaning of carpet).

A careful comparison of the entry and exit photos took place via the Share function in the video conferencing application.

Having considered the evidence I award $350.00 of the invoiced cost as reasonable compensation.

The amount ordered is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The amount ordered is proved.

Two further repair/replacement claims are dismissed as unproven due to wear and tear considerations.

Given the limited success of the applicant I make no order regarding the filing fee and that cost stays with the applicant. Suppression

The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has not been wholly or substantially successful, suppression is not ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313191 — Property damage at 20 Atlanta Grove, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313191 — Property damage at 20 Atlanta Grove, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is 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

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is 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.