How much money was awarded in case 5465531?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; By Consent: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465531?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465531?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13679245-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5465531?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; By Consent: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465531?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465531?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13679245-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5465531 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465531 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 5465531 — net $178.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: by consent	$150.00	Repairs: by consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$178.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$178.00

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 Villa Property Management Limited As Agent For Daniel John Reisch & Sandra Mary Malone $178.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Villa Property Management Limited As Agent For Daniel John Reisch & Sandra Mary Malone: $178.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,222.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing and want the bond refunded to them following the end of the tenancy.

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

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).

The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.

This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have been provided with photos and invoices that show the landlord paid for weeding and to have mould cleaned off some of the window frames at the end of the tenancy. There were also some holes I the garden from the dog which the tenants filled in but the landlord was not happy with the job. The tenants said they did not realise they were responsible for the weeds on the edge of a shared driveway. They provided me with photos showing there was some mould when they moved in. They said they filled in the holes properly.

I find the landlord has not proved the tenants knew they had to weed the edge of the driveway. I am not persuaded by the landlord’s photos that additional cleaning was needed inside the house. There is nothing in the invoice to show what was wrong with the way the holes were filled and I could not see from the photos that bark had been used to fill the holes. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Are the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are two claims for small repairs. The 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 tenants 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 tenants accepted they caused a small amount of damage to the paint work and agreed to pay $150 for the repair.

There is a claim for repairing three damaged weatherboards and the base of the exterior walls. The landlord has proved this happened during the tenancy. I accept the tenants’ explanation the damage is fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. Other orders

A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The tenants have made an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.

The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they have defended most of the claim and agreed to pay for an insignificant amount of damage. I do not find there is public interest in their names.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5465531 — net $178.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: by consent	$150.00	Repairs: by consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$178.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$178.00

Order

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 Villa Property Management Limited As Agent For Daniel John Reisch & Sandra Mary Malone $178.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

All other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Villa Property Management Limited As Agent For Daniel John Reisch & Sandra Mary Malone: $178.00 [The tenant/s]: $2,222.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing and want the bond refunded to them following the end of the tenancy.

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

Tenants must return the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy state and remove their rubbish at the end of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(c) and (e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act (RTA).
The RTA does not require the premises to be provided or returned in a spotless or an immaculate condition. The standard is based on what an average bystander would consider reasonable, not on the subjective opinions of the landlord and tenant. There is no scientific way to determine what is reasonably clean and tidy, and the Tribunal must evaluate the evidence available, and in particular inspection reports and photographs.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I have been provided with photos and invoices that show the landlord paid for weeding and to have mould cleaned off some of the window frames at the end of the tenancy. There were also some holes I the garden from the dog which the tenants filled in but the landlord was not happy with the job. The tenants said they did not realise they were responsible for the weeds on the edge of a shared driveway. They provided me with photos showing there was some mould when they moved in. They said they filled in the holes properly.
I find the landlord has not proved the tenants knew they had to weed the edge of the driveway. I am not persuaded by the landlord’s photos that additional cleaning was needed inside the house. There is nothing in the invoice to show what was wrong with the way the holes were filled and I could not see from the photos that bark had been used to fill the holes. The landlord’s claim is dismissed.

Are the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There are two claims for small repairs. The 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 tenants 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 tenants accepted they caused a small amount of damage to the paint work and agreed to pay $150 for the repair.
There is a claim for repairing three damaged weatherboards and the base of the exterior walls. The landlord has proved this happened during the tenancy. I accept the tenants’ explanation the damage is fair wear and tear. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenants have made an application for suppression. Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, order that the name of a party not be published, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest.
The tenants’ application for suppression is allowed because they have defended most of the claim and agreed to pay for an insignificant amount of damage. I do not find there is public interest in their names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465531 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465531 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Are the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions