What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5323319 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5323319?

Cleaning: $216.25 awarded to landlord; Drain Unblocking: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $677.28 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5323319?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5323319?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12663213-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5323319 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be

How much money was awarded in case 5323319?

Cleaning: $216.25 awarded to landlord; Drain Unblocking: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $677.28 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5323319?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5323319?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12663213-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5323319 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5323319 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5323319 — net $2,071.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$216.25	Carpet Cleaning
Drain unblocking	$200.00	Drain unblocking
Repairing moving truck damage	$500.00	Repairing moving truck damage
Repairing wall damage	$450.00	Repairing wall damage
Replacing carpet with vinyl	$677.28	Replacing carpet with vinyl
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,071.43
Bond	$4,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,071.43

Claims and awards for application 5323319 — net $2,071.43 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $216.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Drain unblocking

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Drain unblocking

Repairing moving truck damage

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairing moving truck damage

Repairing wall damage

Amount: $450.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairing wall damage

Replacing carpet with vinyl

Amount: $677.28
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacing carpet with vinyl

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenants] are to pay [The landlord/s] $2,071.53 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord]: $2,071.53 [The tenants]: $2,008.47

Reasons

All of the parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and damage expenses and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants leave the carpet reasonably clean?

The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the carpets reasonably clean. She claims for the cost of carpet cleaning.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises including the carpets reasonably clean. 1
The landlord’s photographs prove on the balance of probabilities that the carpets were not left reasonably clean. The tenants have young children who no doubt contributed to the marks, dirt, and stains shown in the photographs.
I am satisfied the tenants did not leave carpets reasonably clean.
The landlord provided an invoice for the carpet cleaning. I allow 50 percent of the amount claimed because the photographs indicate that only a few rooms’ carpets needed cleaning not every room and the invoice exceeds what I would expect to clean the carpets in the rooms photographed.

Should the tenants reimburse the landlord for the cost of unblocking the kitchen sink?

The landlord paid $200.00 to have the sink unblocked during the tenancy.
The sink probably became blocked due to food detritus.
The tenants have not shown that the sink’s drain was defective or in need of repair.
The blockage occurred due to the tenants’ actions. Therefore, they are liable to the landlord for the cost she incurred to get the sink unblocked for them.
The landlord submitted an invoice for the cost. I make an order for reimbursement as sought.

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the tenants are liable for damage to the house’s weatherboards, the dining room’s carpet, mould damage in the downstairs bathroom, and wall damage.
The 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. 2 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B.
The tenants’ brother accidentally reversed into the veranda’s weatherboards when the tenants moved out. The damage is more than wear and tear and was caused carelessly. The tenant’s brother carried out a partial repair, but sanding and painting was still required. I allow the landlord’s claim for $500.00 for the cost she incurred to have the damage fully repaired.
The landlord claimed for mould damage to the downstairs bathroom’s ceiling. The tenants say the damage was caused by water ingress through the ceiling. The landlord claims the tenants did not air the bathroom adequately or clean the ceiling as they should have. The damage in the photograph the landlord submitted is consistent with water ingress. I find the tenant’s explanation plausible. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants are responsible for the damage. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for the cost of replacing the dining room’s carpet. The photographs show bad staining. The tenants say some of the stains come from the children’s Slime, a playdough-type toy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and was caused carelessly. The tenants are liable for the repair. The tenants suggested the landlord could have just patched the carpet. However, that would not restore the carpet to a cosmetically acceptable condition given the carpet would not match. The landlord claims the full $2,032.03 cost of replacing the carpet with vinyl. I award to one-third of that amount to account for betterment and depreciate and the higher cost of vinyl versus carpet.
The landlord claimed for the cost of wall damage including several significant holes. I allow $450.00 for the cost of repairing the wall damage, which is about half the total cost to account for betterment and because I am not satisfied that all of the damage, including the balustrade-related wall damage is the tenants’ fault. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful in her claim. I order the tenants to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 3 Bond
The Bond Centre is to pay out the bond in accordance with this order. Non-publication
The landlord seeks non-publication.
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. 3 RTA s 104(2)(b).
The landlord substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Non-publication is ordered.
The tenants also seek non-publication.
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 the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published.
The matters raised in this claim are of a minor nature. The tenants acted responsibly but they disagreed with the landlord about their liability which required the Tribunal’s assistance. I do not consider that they are poor risk tenants that landlords should be forewarned of. Ordering non-publication is consistent with the public interest. The landlord does not oppose the order. Non-publication is ordered.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5323319 — net $2,071.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$216.25	Carpet Cleaning
Drain unblocking	$200.00	Drain unblocking
Repairing moving truck damage	$500.00	Repairing moving truck damage
Repairing wall damage	$450.00	Repairing wall damage
Replacing carpet with vinyl	$677.28	Replacing carpet with vinyl
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,071.43
Bond	$4,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,071.43

Claims and awards for application 5323319 — net $2,071.43 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Carpet Cleaning

Amount: $216.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Carpet Cleaning

Drain unblocking

Amount: $200.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Drain unblocking

Repairing moving truck damage

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairing moving truck damage

Repairing wall damage

Amount: $450.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairing wall damage

Replacing carpet with vinyl

Amount: $677.28
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replacing carpet with vinyl

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Carpet Cleaning Filing Fee Property damage

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenants] are to pay [The landlord/s] $2,071.53 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord]: $2,071.53 [The tenants]: $2,008.47

Reasons

All of the parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for cleaning and damage expenses and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenants leave the carpet reasonably clean?

The landlord claims the tenants did not leave the carpets reasonably clean. She claims for the cost of carpet cleaning.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises including the carpets reasonably clean. 1
The landlord’s photographs prove on the balance of probabilities that the carpets were not left reasonably clean. The tenants have young children who no doubt contributed to the marks, dirt, and stains shown in the photographs.
I am satisfied the tenants did not leave carpets reasonably clean.
The landlord provided an invoice for the carpet cleaning. I allow 50 percent of the amount claimed because the photographs indicate that only a few rooms’ carpets needed cleaning not every room and the invoice exceeds what I would expect to clean the carpets in the rooms photographed.

Should the tenants reimburse the landlord for the cost of unblocking the kitchen sink?

The landlord paid $200.00 to have the sink unblocked during the tenancy.
The sink probably became blocked due to food detritus.
The tenants have not shown that the sink’s drain was defective or in need of repair.
The blockage occurred due to the tenants’ actions. Therefore, they are liable to the landlord for the cost she incurred to get the sink unblocked for them.
The landlord submitted an invoice for the cost. I make an order for reimbursement as sought.

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims the tenants are liable for damage to the house’s weatherboards, the dining room’s carpet, mould damage in the downstairs bathroom, and wall damage.
The 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. 2 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 40(1)(e)(iii). 2 RTA ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B.
The tenants’ brother accidentally reversed into the veranda’s weatherboards when the tenants moved out. The damage is more than wear and tear and was caused carelessly. The tenant’s brother carried out a partial repair, but sanding and painting was still required. I allow the landlord’s claim for $500.00 for the cost she incurred to have the damage fully repaired.
The landlord claimed for mould damage to the downstairs bathroom’s ceiling. The tenants say the damage was caused by water ingress through the ceiling. The landlord claims the tenants did not air the bathroom adequately or clean the ceiling as they should have. The damage in the photograph the landlord submitted is consistent with water ingress. I find the tenant’s explanation plausible. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants are responsible for the damage. This claim is dismissed.
The landlord claimed for the cost of replacing the dining room’s carpet. The photographs show bad staining. The tenants say some of the stains come from the children’s Slime, a playdough-type toy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and was caused carelessly. The tenants are liable for the repair. The tenants suggested the landlord could have just patched the carpet. However, that would not restore the carpet to a cosmetically acceptable condition given the carpet would not match. The landlord claims the full $2,032.03 cost of replacing the carpet with vinyl. I award to one-third of that amount to account for betterment and depreciate and the higher cost of vinyl versus carpet.
The landlord claimed for the cost of wall damage including several significant holes. I allow $450.00 for the cost of repairing the wall damage, which is about half the total cost to account for betterment and because I am not satisfied that all of the damage, including the balustrade-related wall damage is the tenants’ fault. Filing fee
The landlord has been substantially successful in her claim. I order the tenants to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee. 3 Bond
The Bond Centre is to pay out the bond in accordance with this order. Non-publication
The landlord seeks non-publication.
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. 3 RTA s 104(2)(b).
The landlord substantially succeeded in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Non-publication is ordered.
The tenants also seek non-publication.
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 the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published.
The matters raised in this claim are of a minor nature. The tenants acted responsibly but they disagreed with the landlord about their liability which required the Tribunal’s assistance. I do not consider that they are poor risk tenants that landlords should be forewarned of. Ordering non-publication is consistent with the public interest. The landlord does not oppose the order. Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5323319 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5323319 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants leave the carpet reasonably clean?

Should the tenants reimburse the landlord for the cost of unblocking the kitchen sink?

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenants leave the carpet reasonably clean?

Should the tenants reimburse the landlord for the cost of unblocking the kitchen sink?

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions