What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465110 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 5465110?

Bedroom Locks: $191.48 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Fiber Box: $154.73 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $454.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Wooden Structure: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $180.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465110?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13857214-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465110 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 5465110?

Bedroom Locks: $191.48 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $195.50 awarded to landlord; Curtains: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Fiber Box: $154.73 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $454.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Remove Wooden Structure: $140.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $180.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465110?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13857214-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5465110 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465110 — net $1,573.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$195.50	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$180.00	Rubbish removal
Bedroom locks	$191.48	Bedroom locks
Remove wooden structure	$140.00	Remove wooden structure
Wall repairs	$454.25	Wall repairs
Carpet damage	$150.00	Carpet damage
Curtains	$80.00	Curtains
Fiber box	$154.73	Fiber box
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,573.96
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,573.96

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,573.96 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,573.96 [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $1,226.04
The landlord’s 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.
The tenants accept the claim to repair the fibre box and the claim to replace the keys for two bedroom door locks.

Did the tenants 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 and goods belonging to them: section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord claimed the cost $112.25 to clean the toilet, shower and rangehood and $90.00 to tidy the gardens at the end of the tenancy. However, I am satisfied that the tenants left the premises reasonably clean and tidy overall. There will often be some minor additional cleaning and tidying required at the end of a tenancy, particularly after a two-year tenancy such as this, and this is considered to be an ordinary business cost. The claim for cleaning and tidying the gardens is therefore dismissed.
The tenants accept that they left some rubbish (including a table tennis table) at the premises at the end of the premises, but I accept their undisputed evidence that the other rubbish was at the premises at the tenancy commencement. I have therefore reduced the amount claimed to account for the disposal of this rubbish.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The landlord claims the cost to remedy the following: • Dining room sliding door lock: $258.75 • Dining room door frame: $149.50 • Carpet burn/stains: $345.50 • Fence: $316.25 • Curtains: $264.50 • Heat pump remote batteries: $10.00 • Wooden structure erected in tree: $178.25
The claim to replace the heat pump remote batteries is dismissed because there is no evidence to suggest that the tenants’ caused any damage to the batteries; they simply stopped working because they have come to the end of their useful life. This is considered to be ‘damage’ due to ordinary fair wear and tear and not the responsibility of a tenant to remedy.
I am satisfied that the stains and burns on the living room carpet occurred during the tenancy, the damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for it. I consider the compensation claimed for the damage ($195.50 in an attempt to clean the carpet and $150.00 compensation for the damage) is reasonable in the circumstances even after taking into account depreciation/betterment (the carpet was new in July 2022).
I also find the tenants liable for the cost to repair damage to the wall in the living room and the hall (by laundry access) and the damage to curtains in the dining room (stains and mould which could not be removed by cleaning). I am satisfied that the landlord has established that this damage occurred during the tenancy, is more the fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for it.
The amount claimed to repair the walls has been established by the production of an invoice. The amount claimed to replace the curtains has been reduced to account for depreciation/betterment. [Ms W] did not know the age of the curtains but the pre tenancy inspection report records that they are “not in good condition”. Doing the best I can on the evidence before me, I consider the sum of $80.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage to the curtains.
The tenants accept that they erected a wooden structure in a tree at the premises and they did not remove it before the tenancy ended. I therefore find them liable for the cost to have it removed. However, I dismiss the claim to dispose of the wood after the structure was removed. I accept the tenants undisputed evidence that the wood used was from wood that had been left at the premises when the tenancy commenced. They are therefore not liable for the cost to dispose of it.
The claim to repair the damaged fence that runs along a driveway shared by the tenancy premises and three other properties id dismissed because the landlord has not established that the damage was caused by the tenants or others at the premises with their permission. The tenants deny causing the damage and the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to support their belief that it was caused by the tenants (and not by other occupants property owners using the driveway).
The claim to repair the sliding door lock in the dining room is dismissed because the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to support that the issue with the lock was not due to ordinary wear and tear rather than any careless or deliberate actions of the tenants. The door handle was old (possibly 20 years) and the tenants said that it was not working well at the tenancy commencement.
Similarly, the claim to repair the sliding door frame is dismissed because I consider the damage was due to ordinary use of the preexisting faulty door lock and not due to any careless or deliberate actions of the tenants. Tribunal application fee and suppression
The landlord applied, in her application, for a suppression order. As the landlord has been mostly successful in her claims, he is entitled to an order pursuant to section 95A of the Act. I therefore order that her name and identifying details be suppressed. I also consider this an appropriate case to award her payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465110 — net $1,573.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$195.50	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal	$180.00	Rubbish removal
Bedroom locks	$191.48	Bedroom locks
Remove wooden structure	$140.00	Remove wooden structure
Wall repairs	$454.25	Wall repairs
Carpet damage	$150.00	Carpet damage
Curtains	$80.00	Curtains
Fiber box	$154.73	Fiber box
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,573.96
Bond	$2,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,573.96

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,573.96 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,573.96 [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s]: $1,226.04
The landlord’s 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.
The tenants accept the claim to repair the fibre box and the claim to replace the keys for two bedroom door locks.

Did the tenants 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 and goods belonging to them: section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlord claimed the cost $112.25 to clean the toilet, shower and rangehood and $90.00 to tidy the gardens at the end of the tenancy. However, I am satisfied that the tenants left the premises reasonably clean and tidy overall. There will often be some minor additional cleaning and tidying required at the end of a tenancy, particularly after a two-year tenancy such as this, and this is considered to be an ordinary business cost. The claim for cleaning and tidying the gardens is therefore dismissed.
The tenants accept that they left some rubbish (including a table tennis table) at the premises at the end of the premises, but I accept their undisputed evidence that the other rubbish was at the premises at the tenancy commencement. I have therefore reduced the amount claimed to account for the disposal of this rubbish.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
The landlord claims the cost to remedy the following: • Dining room sliding door lock: $258.75 • Dining room door frame: $149.50 • Carpet burn/stains: $345.50 • Fence: $316.25 • Curtains: $264.50 • Heat pump remote batteries: $10.00 • Wooden structure erected in tree: $178.25
The claim to replace the heat pump remote batteries is dismissed because there is no evidence to suggest that the tenants’ caused any damage to the batteries; they simply stopped working because they have come to the end of their useful life. This is considered to be ‘damage’ due to ordinary fair wear and tear and not the responsibility of a tenant to remedy.
I am satisfied that the stains and burns on the living room carpet occurred during the tenancy, the damage is beyond fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for it. I consider the compensation claimed for the damage ($195.50 in an attempt to clean the carpet and $150.00 compensation for the damage) is reasonable in the circumstances even after taking into account depreciation/betterment (the carpet was new in July 2022).
I also find the tenants liable for the cost to repair damage to the wall in the living room and the hall (by laundry access) and the damage to curtains in the dining room (stains and mould which could not be removed by cleaning). I am satisfied that the landlord has established that this damage occurred during the tenancy, is more the fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for it.
The amount claimed to repair the walls has been established by the production of an invoice. The amount claimed to replace the curtains has been reduced to account for depreciation/betterment. [Ms W] did not know the age of the curtains but the pre tenancy inspection report records that they are “not in good condition”. Doing the best I can on the evidence before me, I consider the sum of $80.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage to the curtains.
The tenants accept that they erected a wooden structure in a tree at the premises and they did not remove it before the tenancy ended. I therefore find them liable for the cost to have it removed. However, I dismiss the claim to dispose of the wood after the structure was removed. I accept the tenants undisputed evidence that the wood used was from wood that had been left at the premises when the tenancy commenced. They are therefore not liable for the cost to dispose of it.
The claim to repair the damaged fence that runs along a driveway shared by the tenancy premises and three other properties id dismissed because the landlord has not established that the damage was caused by the tenants or others at the premises with their permission. The tenants deny causing the damage and the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to support their belief that it was caused by the tenants (and not by other occupants property owners using the driveway).
The claim to repair the sliding door lock in the dining room is dismissed because the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to support that the issue with the lock was not due to ordinary wear and tear rather than any careless or deliberate actions of the tenants. The door handle was old (possibly 20 years) and the tenants said that it was not working well at the tenancy commencement.
Similarly, the claim to repair the sliding door frame is dismissed because I consider the damage was due to ordinary use of the preexisting faulty door lock and not due to any careless or deliberate actions of the tenants. Tribunal application fee and suppression
The landlord applied, in her application, for a suppression order. As the landlord has been mostly successful in her claims, he is entitled to an order pursuant to section 95A of the Act. I therefore order that her name and identifying details be suppressed. I also consider this an appropriate case to award her payment of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465110 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465110 — Property damage

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

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