What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356332 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5356332?

Compensation: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $47.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,083.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356332?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12880673-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5356332 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5356332?

Compensation: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $47.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,083.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5356332?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5356332?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12880673-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

28 James Evans Drive, Northcote, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5356332 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356332 — net $1,238.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for missing battery charger	$80.00	Compensation for missing battery charger
Compensation for missing leaf blower	$47.00	Compensation for missing leaf blower
Repair damaged wooden flooring	$1,083.76	Repair damaged wooden flooring
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,238.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,238.76

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by video. Mr Foo represented the tenants.

The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to wooden flooring and for replacing missing chattels following the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave all chattels provided as part of the tenancy.

The landlord provided a battery charger, and a leaf blower listed in the tenancy agreement chattels list.

The 2 items were missing at the end of the tenancy.

Mr Foo said the tenants used the battery charger, but not the (gas operated) leaf blower. He accepted that the battery charger was not there at the end of the tenancy but said he did not take it. He said he never saw or used the gas- powered leaf blower as the tenants had their own electric leaf blower.

The landlord’s representative confirmed that the 2 chattels were listed in the chattels list at the start of the tenancy but were not there at the end. She said she failed to notice that at the final inspection. When the owners returned from overseas, they noticed the missing items. That explained the delay in making the application (about 7 months).

Although another tenancy started after this one, these chattels were not provided as part of that tenancy.

The tenants were responsible to ensure that all chattels provided at the start of the tenancy were present at the end of the tenancy. They are therefore liable for the replacement of these chattels.

I have depreciated the battery charger by about 35% to reflect its age (4 years old) and the leaf blower by about 80% to reflect its age (11 years old) and have awarded compensation on that basis. The landlord cannot expect to receive new chattels when the items to be replaced are aged. The Tribunal must take depreciation into account.

Are the tenants 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 1 .

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a section of oak wooden flooring was stain-damaged where the tenants placed wine bottles. 1 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)

Mr Foo said his mother placed the bottles to cover what he thought was mould stains. He accepted that the area of wooden flooring was not damaged at the start of the tenancy.

From the evidence the landlord produced – photos and a report from the flooring company that completed the repair – I find it probable that the tenants carelessly placed wine bottles on the flooring causing stain damage. The report states that the damage was most likely caused by above floor moisture penetration, probably a spill.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.

Mr Foo queried why these claims had been made so long after the tenancy ended, when the bond had already been partly refunded to the tenants. While not ideal, a landlord is not prevented from making claims after the bond has been refunded when damage and missing chattels are only noticed some time later.

The amounts ordered are proved by property inspection reports, photos, invoices, and by the evidence the landlord’s representative gave at the hearing. Result

The tenants will pay the landlord $1,238.76 which include reimbursement of the filing fee on the successful application. Name suppression

Both parties sought name suppression. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful. The tenants are not entitled to name suppression as their defence is unsuccessful 2 .

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5356332 — net $1,238.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for missing battery charger	$80.00	Compensation for missing battery charger
Compensation for missing leaf blower	$47.00	Compensation for missing leaf blower
Repair damaged wooden flooring	$1,083.76	Repair damaged wooden flooring
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,238.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,238.76

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Audy Tong, Jamie Foo and Miguel Foo must pay [The landlord/s] $1,238.76 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by video. Mr Foo represented the tenants.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to wooden flooring and for replacing missing chattels following the end of the tenancy.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave all chattels provided as part of the tenancy.
The landlord provided a battery charger, and a leaf blower listed in the tenancy agreement chattels list.
The 2 items were missing at the end of the tenancy.
Mr Foo said the tenants used the battery charger, but not the (gas operated) leaf blower. He accepted that the battery charger was not there at the end of the tenancy but said he did not take it. He said he never saw or used the gas- powered leaf blower as the tenants had their own electric leaf blower.
The landlord’s representative confirmed that the 2 chattels were listed in the chattels list at the start of the tenancy but were not there at the end. She said she failed to notice that at the final inspection. When the owners returned from overseas, they noticed the missing items. That explained the delay in making the application (about 7 months).
Although another tenancy started after this one, these chattels were not provided as part of that tenancy.
The tenants were responsible to ensure that all chattels provided at the start of the tenancy were present at the end of the tenancy. They are therefore liable for the replacement of these chattels.
I have depreciated the battery charger by about 35% to reflect its age (4 years old) and the leaf blower by about 80% to reflect its age (11 years old) and have awarded compensation on that basis. The landlord cannot expect to receive new chattels when the items to be replaced are aged. The Tribunal must take depreciation into account.

Are the tenants 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 1 .
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a section of oak wooden flooring was stain-damaged where the tenants placed wine bottles. 1 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA)
Mr Foo said his mother placed the bottles to cover what he thought was mould stains. He accepted that the area of wooden flooring was not damaged at the start of the tenancy.
From the evidence the landlord produced – photos and a report from the flooring company that completed the repair – I find it probable that the tenants carelessly placed wine bottles on the flooring causing stain damage. The report states that the damage was most likely caused by above floor moisture penetration, probably a spill.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
Mr Foo queried why these claims had been made so long after the tenancy ended, when the bond had already been partly refunded to the tenants. While not ideal, a landlord is not prevented from making claims after the bond has been refunded when damage and missing chattels are only noticed some time later.
The amounts ordered are proved by property inspection reports, photos, invoices, and by the evidence the landlord’s representative gave at the hearing. Result
The tenants will pay the landlord $1,238.76 which include reimbursement of the filing fee on the successful application. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful. The tenants are not entitled to name suppression as their defence is unsuccessful 2 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356332 — Property damage at 28 James Evans Drive, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5356332 — Property damage at 28 James Evans Drive, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenants responsible 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 comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions