What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5456595 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $983.00 from

How much money was awarded in case 5456595?

Fence Palings Agreement: $55.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wall Agreement: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Thermal Curtain Agreement: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5456595?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5456595?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13849295-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5456595 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $983.00 from

How much money was awarded in case 5456595?

Fence Palings Agreement: $55.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wall Agreement: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Thermal Curtain Agreement: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5456595?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5456595?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13849295-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 The Bollard, Whitby, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5456595 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5456595 — net $983.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Thermal curtain agreement	$300.00	Thermal curtain agreement
Fence palings agreement	$55.00	Fence palings agreement
Kitchen vinyl damage agreement	$500.00	Kitchen vinyl damage agreement
Repairs: Hole in wall agreement	$100.00	Repairs: Hole in wall agreement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$983.00
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$983.00

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $983.00 from the bond.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (3425721-004) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $983.00 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $1,817.00

The amount to pay is calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord and Alaynay Failava attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The parties reached agreement regarding the curtain replacement, vinyl damage from the fridge movement, fence paling replacement and a small hole in the wall.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the chaise lounge?

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.

In May 2022 the landlord purchased a ‘Downtown 4 Seater RHF Chaise Charleston’ for $1,999.00 that she supplied as part of the tenancy.

The landlord provided evidence showing the condition of the chaise lounge at the start of the tenancy on 20 March 2023 when it was nine months old. She also provided photos showing the condition of the chaise lounge at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims that the damage to the chaise lounge is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants state that they did not use the chaise lounge in any way other than sitting on it.

The chaise lounge is clearly in a condition that shows considerable deterioration while being used by the tenants. The foam is collapsed in parts and the cambric under the chaise lounge is torn. There is wear in parts of the fabric.

The question is whether the tenants damaged the chaise lounge or that quality of the chaise lounge has led to it being wear and tear.

I understand why the tenant believes that the tenants have damaged the chaise lounge. She owned it for nine months and it showed no signs of damage. The tenants used the chaise lounge for a further two and a half years making the chaise lounge only three years old in this poor condition.

The landlord did not provide any information from an expert giving an opinion as to the cause of the failure of the chaise lounge. A report would point out factors that would show damage as opposed to wear and tear and assist her in the proof of her claim. The claim could have been dismissed due to insufficient evidence however before doing so I checked publicly available information about the life and quality of furniture.

The price paid puts the chaise lounge into the ‘budget’ category. A search on the web asking about the life of budget chaise lounge produced the following. ‘A budget chaise lounge subjected to heavy use will typically last 2 to 5 years. Because budget furniture relies on particleboard frames, low-density foam, and thin upholstery, the constant pressure and daily wear of heavy usage will quickly accelerate sagging, frame creaking, and fabric tears.’

I have also taken into account that the tenant volunteered that she and her partner are heavy people. It is possible that the chaise lounge has suffered because of its quality and the people using it. It is probable that if the tenant had stayed using the chaise lounge it would not be in the condition it was at the end of the tenancy.

Based on the information provided by the landlord there is insufficient evidence to prove that the chaise lounge ended up as it was at the end of the tenancy because the tenants damaged it. It is just as likely that the condition was due to heavy wear and tear on a budget chaise lounge. For that reason, the claim for the chaise lounge must be dismissed. Filing fee

Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5456595 — net $983.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Thermal curtain agreement	$300.00	Thermal curtain agreement
Fence palings agreement	$55.00	Fence palings agreement
Kitchen vinyl damage agreement	$500.00	Kitchen vinyl damage agreement
Repairs: Hole in wall agreement	$100.00	Repairs: Hole in wall agreement
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$983.00
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$983.00

Order

[The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $983.00 from the bond.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (3425721-004) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $983.00 [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $1,817.00
The amount to pay is calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord and Alaynay Failava attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties reached agreement regarding the curtain replacement, vinyl damage from the fridge movement, fence paling replacement and a small hole in the wall.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the chaise lounge?

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.
In May 2022 the landlord purchased a ‘Downtown 4 Seater RHF Chaise Charleston’ for $1,999.00 that she supplied as part of the tenancy.
The landlord provided evidence showing the condition of the chaise lounge at the start of the tenancy on 20 March 2023 when it was nine months old. She also provided photos showing the condition of the chaise lounge at the end of the tenancy. The landlord claims that the damage to the chaise lounge is more than fair wear and tear. The tenants state that they did not use the chaise lounge in any way other than sitting on it.
The chaise lounge is clearly in a condition that shows considerable deterioration while being used by the tenants. The foam is collapsed in parts and the cambric under the chaise lounge is torn. There is wear in parts of the fabric.
The question is whether the tenants damaged the chaise lounge or that quality of the chaise lounge has led to it being wear and tear.
I understand why the tenant believes that the tenants have damaged the chaise lounge. She owned it for nine months and it showed no signs of damage. The tenants used the chaise lounge for a further two and a half years making the chaise lounge only three years old in this poor condition.
The landlord did not provide any information from an expert giving an opinion as to the cause of the failure of the chaise lounge. A report would point out factors that would show damage as opposed to wear and tear and assist her in the proof of her claim. The claim could have been dismissed due to insufficient evidence however before doing so I checked publicly available information about the life and quality of furniture.
The price paid puts the chaise lounge into the ‘budget’ category. A search on the web asking about the life of budget chaise lounge produced the following. ‘A budget chaise lounge subjected to heavy use will typically last 2 to 5 years. Because budget furniture relies on particleboard frames, low-density foam, and thin upholstery, the constant pressure and daily wear of heavy usage will quickly accelerate sagging, frame creaking, and fabric tears.’
I have also taken into account that the tenant volunteered that she and her partner are heavy people. It is possible that the chaise lounge has suffered because of its quality and the people using it. It is probable that if the tenant had stayed using the chaise lounge it would not be in the condition it was at the end of the tenancy.
Based on the information provided by the landlord there is insufficient evidence to prove that the chaise lounge ended up as it was at the end of the tenancy because the tenants damaged it. It is just as likely that the condition was due to heavy wear and tear on a budget chaise lounge. For that reason, the claim for the chaise lounge must be dismissed. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been partly successful with the claim the filing fee of $28.00 is ordered to be paid by the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5456595 — Property damage at 17 The Bollard, Whitby, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5456595 — Property damage at 17 The Bollard, Whitby, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the chaise lounge?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the chaise lounge?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions