How much money was awarded in case 5403288?

AM: $99.13 awarded to landlord; CC-P: $230.13 awarded to landlord; CS: $7.80 awarded to landlord; JK: $27.80 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Net curtains –…: $25.00 awarded to landlord; TP: $169.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5403288?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5403288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13295022-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5403288?

AM: $99.13 awarded to landlord; CC-P: $230.13 awarded to landlord; CS: $7.80 awarded to landlord; JK: $27.80 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Net curtains –…: $25.00 awarded to landlord; TP: $169.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5403288?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5403288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13295022-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

271A Memorial Avenue, Burnside, Christchurch 8053 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5403288 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5403288 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5403288 — net $530.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace furnishings: Net curtains – [Mr K’s] room	$25.00		Replace furnishings: Net curtains – [Mr K’s] room
AM	$99.13		AM
TP	$169.13		TP
CC-P	$230.13		CC-P
CS	$7.80		CS
JK	$27.80		JK
deducted from his share of the bond		$28.00	deducted from his share of the bond
Total award	$558.99	$28.00
Net award	$530.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$530.99

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Catherine Ko $530.99 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Mr K to pay Ms S $14.00 being her share of the filing fee refunded in full to Mr K.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms [S] and Mr [K] attended on behalf of themselves, the other tenants, having resolved matters privately, did not attend and were not involved in the application except as regards refund of their agreed bond amounts.

The full bond remained at the Bond Centre as at the hearing date. Ms [S] and Mr [K] disputed amounts claimed by the landlord, but the other tenants had agreed to landlord deductions and signed the bond form accordingly.

The amounts awarded to the landlord by consent above reflect the amounts agreed in the signed bond form provided to the Tribunal.

As the landlord wished to claim monies from the bond otherwise than by consent, she filed her own application the day before the hearing. Although this application had not been fully processed by Tenancy Services and was not before the Tribunal, the landlord confirmed that it covered identical material to the tenants’ claim and no additional evidence was required in relation to her claim.

The parties consented to both applications being heard at the same time.

The tenant has applied for full refund of the disputed portion of their bond and exemplary damages for healthy homes breaches and breach of landlord obligations on receipt of the bond.

The landlord has applied for compensation and partial 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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

The landlord alleges that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to net curtains in Mr [K]’s room at a replacement cost of $25.00, b. Damage to net curtains in Ms [S]’s room at a replacement cost of $25.00, c. Damage to drapes in Ms [S]’s room where the landlord is claiming a contribution to costs of $39.00, d. Damage to the paint in the ensuite at a contribution cost of $50.00 for each of Ms [S] and Mr [K]

The landlord did not complete a full pre-tenancy inspection report with photographs.

The landlord had not completed the checklist property inspection report contained in standard Tenancy Services tenancy agreements.

The tenant had completed the checklist and had checked the box for blinds and curtains in both relevant rooms noting that their condition was acceptable.

The tenants had been reasonably thorough in their pre-tenancy inspection report. They identified a number of issues that were unsatisfactory and required repair. They also made a list of additional issues that came to light later and needed attention.

The landlord relied on the fact that curtains were not mentioned by the tenant to suggest that they were in good order at the beginning of the tenancy and that the damage present at the end of the tenancy must, therefore have occurred during the tenancy. I do not accept that a tenant ticking a box to say that the condition is acceptable can be used by the landlord as proof this damage occurred during the tenancy.

Acceptable to a tenant does not necessarily mean unstained or in perfect condition. It may simply mean able to be used for its purpose or not in need of repair. The items mentioned by the tenants were matters in need of repair or missing parts of chattels. This is not evidence the landlord can rely on to establish that the curtains were unstained or completely free of damage at the beginning of the tenancy.

The landlord did provide a photograph of the net curtains in Mr [K]’s bedroom which showed that there was little if any damage at the beginning of the tenancy.

These curtains had many significant holes at the end of the tenancy.

Mr [K] thought the damage was fair wear and tear.

Although lace curtains have a relatively short life span and are frequently replaced, this level of damage occurring over a tenancy period of one year is more than fair wear and tear and I find Mr [K] liable for the cost of replacement of the net curtain in his room ($25.00).

There were no pre-tenancy photographs provided of the lace curtains in Ms [S]’s room.

The lace curtains seemed to have minimal damage at the end of the tenancy and Ms [S] was unsure if it had occurred during the tenancy or not but, in any case, she considered that it amounted to fair wear and tear.

The landlord has not provided evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that this damage occurred during the tenancy so no compensation can be ordered in relation to the net curtain.

The blue drapes in Ms [S]’s room had small areas that seem to have been bleached by some unknown method.

Again, there were no pre-tenancy photographs provided. The pre-tenancy checklist has the box ticked by the tenant to say these were in satisfactory condition but, as I have said above, I do not consider that sufficient evidence for the landlord to prove this damage was not there at the beginning of the tenancy.

The tenant thought the areas of stain or bleach were present at the beginning of the tenancy and had no recollection of the damage occurring during the tenancy.

Again, the landlord has not provided evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that this damage occurred during the tenancy so no compensation can be ordered in relation to the blue drapes.

The tenant had noted that there was “slight paint peeling” on the ensuite walls in the pre-tenancy checklist. This peeling paint had got much worse during the tenancy and the landlord was claiming $50.00 from each tenant to contribute to repairs and repainting with bathroom appropriate paint.

It is clear that the walls above the shower have deteriorated and that this occurred during the tenancy.

The tenant said that they used the ensuite in the normal way. They used the fan and the three-in-one light/fan/heater system each time they showered, and they opened the bathroom window to ventilate the space.

They said that moisture had been an issue in other parts of the house and provided evidence to confirm that they had used “damp-rid” type products and said that they had used a dehumidifier.

They had tried to clean the area in question so that mould did not form, and the landlord said that this had made the peeling paint worse.

Given that moisture was behind the paint prior to the tenancy beginning, it seems inevitable that this would worsen with two people showered in the space daily, even with normal use. It is hard to imagine that the tenants could be responsible for this damage by any careless behaviour. The fan automatically starts when the heat/light system is turned on, so it is very unlikely that they showed without the fan on and there is no evidence to suggest any other improper usage.

The landlord suggested they may have dried towels in the bathroom, but this is not unusual or careless behaviour.

The landlord also acknowledged that she had had the bathroom repainted at at least one other time during her ownership of the property indicating that this has been an ongoing issue in the tenancy premises.

I find that the damage to the bathroom was not caused by any careless behaviour on the part of the tenants and no compensation can be ordered.

The amount ordered is proved and all other claims are dismissed. Exemplary damages for non-lodgement of bond and alleged Healthy Homes breaches

[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.

A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received under section 19(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 under section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The landlord accepted that she had failed to lodge the bond as required. She remedied the breach as soon as it was brought to her attention.

I find she has committed an unlawful act.

Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest under section 109(3) of the Act.

I am not satisfied that it would be just to award exemplary damages in this case.

The landlord has owned the property for some time, but she had previously engaged the services of a property management company. This was the first tenancy that she had managed herself.

The landlord was not aware of the requirement to lodge the bond (although, I acknowledge that she should have made herself aware of her obligations before taking over management of the tenancy).

There was no intentional breach of the Act.

Whilst I acknowledge that the tenants likely suffered some additional stress on realising the disputed bond was not protected by being lodged, it was short lived as the landlord lodged the bond as soon as she could do so on realising her error.

The landlord is now aware of her obligations and is unlikely to make the error again given this experience.

No exemplary damages are ordered.

The claim for exemplary damages for alleged breaches of Healthy Homes obligations was withdrawn by the applicants at the hearing. Name suppression and filing fee

Name suppression was requested by the applicant and is awarded primarily to protect the tenants who are named above but were not part of the application having settled matters privately.

As the applicants were partly successful, I have ordered refund of the filing fee. The entire amount has been awarded to Mr [K] for accounting reasons and he is to pay half to Ms [S] as ordered above.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5403288 — net $530.99 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Replace furnishings: Net curtains – [Mr K’s] room	$25.00		Replace furnishings: Net curtains – [Mr K’s] room
AM	$99.13		AM
TP	$169.13		TP
CC-P	$230.13		CC-P
CS	$7.80		CS
JK	$27.80		JK
deducted from his share of the bond		$28.00	deducted from his share of the bond
Total award	$558.99	$28.00
Net award	$530.99
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$530.99