What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5325924 about?

The tribunal order states: Wallace Bowen to pay Angela Pauline Anderson $237.00 from the bond, being

How much money was awarded in case 5325924?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325924?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325924?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12669241-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5325924 about?

The tribunal order states: Wallace Bowen to pay Angela Pauline Anderson $237.00 from the bond, being

How much money was awarded in case 5325924?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5325924?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5325924?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12669241-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Exeter Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin 9018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5325924 — Mould & damp

Order

Wallace Bowen to pay Angela Pauline Anderson $237.00 from the bond, being compensation for carpet repair.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,700.00 (6272470-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Angela Pauline Anderson: $237.00 Wallace Bowen: $1,463.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

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.
“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.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy. The landlord sought compensation for the costs incurred: a. Carpet damage in the lounge and bedroom. There was damage to the carpet in the lounge by the exit door and in one bedroom. The landlord had the carpet repaired at a cost of $474.00. The tenant had previously arranged for this repair at that cost but due to an end of tenancy dispute the landlord had that job cancelled and the tenant was refunded. The tenant no longer accepted liability. Having considered the respective submissions, as well as the video and photographic evidence I consider the tenant is liable for the carpet damage in the lounge. The landlord has not been able to evidence the same liability for the different carpet damage in the bedroom. I have awarded 50% of the total cost incurred – being $237.00. b. Heat pump. At the end of the tenancy the landlord discovered the removable grill at the base was taped in place after an apparent break of at least one retaining clip. The top fin/vane for air distribution was also broken. The landlord produced an invoice for $437.00 and full recovery was sought. That invoice had two components. The first was a new front cover and vane, the second was for a service. The landlord never explained why the service cost component was a tenant liability. Regardless, the heat pump presented, in the photos provided, of some age. I favour the tenant version that the damage was wear and tear. He described the plastic as brittle. It is certainly aged. No tenant liability has been proven here and I dismiss this claim. c. Lock. An external lock was found inoperable by the landlord. The key had been returned but the locking mechanism had failed. The tenant submitted this was a door that was not used and he was unaware of the failure. I have no evidence that the failure was more than wear and tear and I dismiss this claim. d. Historic claim regarding mould treatment in a bedroom. In July 2023, the parties exchanged messages regarding mould in a second bedroom, occupied by the tenant’s daughter at that time. The tenant accepted mould was present and attributed that to a lack of airing. Discussion about treatment of the mould is shown. The landlord had concerns about possible causes beyond user behaviour and wanted to engage a remedial clean. This was conducted at a cost of $708.26. No demand on the tenant for that cost was made at the time. The landlord submitted that was out of concern for the tenant’s finances and she intended it would come out of the bond later. Given the further longevity of the tenancy of some 1.5 years, such an expectation should have been addressed at the time. The tenant could have challenged that at the time. Having considered the messaging from then, I find a lack of evidence to establish tenant liability for the cost of mould removal undertaken in July 2023. Cheaper alternative cleaning as discussed in the messaging could have been adopted with commercial cleaning to follow if the initial approach was unsuccessful. This claim is dismissed.
The damage to the lounge carpet is considered is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
All other claims are dismissed. I consider the lock and heat pump to be wear and tear costs to be borne by the landlord. The retrospective claim for mould removal from July 2025 is not proven as a tenant liability.
The amount ordered is proved and paid from the bond. Filing fee
Given the limited success of the applicant I make no order regarding the filing fee.

Order

Wallace Bowen to pay Angela Pauline Anderson $237.00 from the bond, being compensation for carpet repair.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,700.00 (6272470-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Angela Pauline Anderson: $237.00 Wallace Bowen: $1,463.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”

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.
“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.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy. The landlord sought compensation for the costs incurred: a. Carpet damage in the lounge and bedroom. There was damage to the carpet in the lounge by the exit door and in one bedroom. The landlord had the carpet repaired at a cost of $474.00. The tenant had previously arranged for this repair at that cost but due to an end of tenancy dispute the landlord had that job cancelled and the tenant was refunded. The tenant no longer accepted liability. Having considered the respective submissions, as well as the video and photographic evidence I consider the tenant is liable for the carpet damage in the lounge. The landlord has not been able to evidence the same liability for the different carpet damage in the bedroom. I have awarded 50% of the total cost incurred – being $237.00. b. Heat pump. At the end of the tenancy the landlord discovered the removable grill at the base was taped in place after an apparent break of at least one retaining clip. The top fin/vane for air distribution was also broken. The landlord produced an invoice for $437.00 and full recovery was sought. That invoice had two components. The first was a new front cover and vane, the second was for a service. The landlord never explained why the service cost component was a tenant liability. Regardless, the heat pump presented, in the photos provided, of some age. I favour the tenant version that the damage was wear and tear. He described the plastic as brittle. It is certainly aged. No tenant liability has been proven here and I dismiss this claim. c. Lock. An external lock was found inoperable by the landlord. The key had been returned but the locking mechanism had failed. The tenant submitted this was a door that was not used and he was unaware of the failure. I have no evidence that the failure was more than wear and tear and I dismiss this claim. d. Historic claim regarding mould treatment in a bedroom. In July 2023, the parties exchanged messages regarding mould in a second bedroom, occupied by the tenant’s daughter at that time. The tenant accepted mould was present and attributed that to a lack of airing. Discussion about treatment of the mould is shown. The landlord had concerns about possible causes beyond user behaviour and wanted to engage a remedial clean. This was conducted at a cost of $708.26. No demand on the tenant for that cost was made at the time. The landlord submitted that was out of concern for the tenant’s finances and she intended it would come out of the bond later. Given the further longevity of the tenancy of some 1.5 years, such an expectation should have been addressed at the time. The tenant could have challenged that at the time. Having considered the messaging from then, I find a lack of evidence to establish tenant liability for the cost of mould removal undertaken in July 2023. Cheaper alternative cleaning as discussed in the messaging could have been adopted with commercial cleaning to follow if the initial approach was unsuccessful. This claim is dismissed.
The damage to the lounge carpet is considered is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
All other claims are dismissed. I consider the lock and heat pump to be wear and tear costs to be borne by the landlord. The retrospective claim for mould removal from July 2025 is not proven as a tenant liability.
The amount ordered is proved and paid from the bond. Filing fee
Given the limited success of the applicant I make no order regarding the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325924 — Mould & damp at 6 Exeter Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin 9018

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5325924 — Mould & damp at 6 Exeter Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin 9018

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions