How much money was awarded in case 5437288?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; To Wardrobe Door: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437288?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13761979-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5437288?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; To Wardrobe Door: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437288?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437288?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13761979-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

810 Lumsden Road, Akina, Hastings 4122 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5437288 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5437288 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5437288 — net $228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: to wardrobe door	$100.00	Repairs: to wardrobe door
Rubbish removal: lawn clippings	$100.00	Rubbish removal: lawn clippings
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$228.00
Bond	$2,298.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$228.00

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

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $228.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,298.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $228.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,070.00

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.

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 and remove all rubbish including lawn clippings.

The tenant did not remove the lawn clippings.

The amounts ordered is considered a reasonable apportionment of the rubbish removal cost (noting that the landlord must pay for large tree/shrub waste removal) and therefore 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.

The landlord’s claim for replacement of the carpets is dismissed. It is likely the carpets were at least 10 years old at the beginning of the tenancy, the pre- inspection report shows they were also stained and damaged.

At the end of the tenancy, the carpets were at least 14 years old and principles of betterment and depreciation confirm that they had no economic value.

Theses principles say that the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpets at the start and end of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

While the evidence shows there was additional stains caused during the tenancy of 4 years and the tenant would have been liable for the cost of carpet cleaning, the tenant said she cancelled the carpet cleaner she had booked as the property manager told her the carpets were to be lifted and thrown away.

The only damage to walls and doors that can be proven to have occurred during the tenancy and not rectified by the tenant, is varnish that had lifted as a result of stickers being attached and then removed from a wardrobe door.

The tenant is liable for the cost of revarnishing that area only, as this can fairly be called careless damage and the cost awarded considered reasonable compensation.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approved name suppression.

I have also approved name suppression for the tenants as this was supported by the landlord and the tenant liability here is minimal meaning there is negligible public interest in publishing the tenants’ names.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5437288 — net $228.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: to wardrobe door	$100.00	Repairs: to wardrobe door
Rubbish removal: lawn clippings	$100.00	Rubbish removal: lawn clippings
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$228.00
Bond	$2,298.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$228.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both party’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $228.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,298.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $228.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,070.00

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.

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 and remove all rubbish including lawn clippings.
The tenant did not remove the lawn clippings.
The amounts ordered is considered a reasonable apportionment of the rubbish removal cost (noting that the landlord must pay for large tree/shrub waste removal) and therefore 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.
The landlord’s claim for replacement of the carpets is dismissed. It is likely the carpets were at least 10 years old at the beginning of the tenancy, the pre- inspection report shows they were also stained and damaged.
At the end of the tenancy, the carpets were at least 14 years old and principles of betterment and depreciation confirm that they had no economic value.
Theses principles say that the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the carpets at the start and end of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
While the evidence shows there was additional stains caused during the tenancy of 4 years and the tenant would have been liable for the cost of carpet cleaning, the tenant said she cancelled the carpet cleaner she had booked as the property manager told her the carpets were to be lifted and thrown away.
The only damage to walls and doors that can be proven to have occurred during the tenancy and not rectified by the tenant, is varnish that had lifted as a result of stickers being attached and then removed from a wardrobe door.
The tenant is liable for the cost of revarnishing that area only, as this can fairly be called careless damage and the cost awarded considered reasonable compensation.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approved name suppression.
I have also approved name suppression for the tenants as this was supported by the landlord and the tenant liability here is minimal meaning there is negligible public interest in publishing the tenants’ names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437288 — Property damage at 810 Lumsden Road, Akina, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437288 — Property damage at 810 Lumsden Road, Akina, Hastings 4122

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Frequently asked questions