What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5503670 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5503670?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5503670?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5503670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13644177-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5503670 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5503670?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5503670?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5503670?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13644177-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

103 Bowenvale Avenue, Cashmere, Christchurch 8022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5503670 — Cleanliness

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $507.75 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The Tribunal confirms that the landlord can retain the $362.25 received from the bond for repairs.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The Tribunal had first to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The landlord relied on the exclusion in section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which provides that the RTA shall not apply “where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family”.
The Tribunal has determined that the RTA does not apply for the following reasons: a. The bedroom with ensuite rented by the tenant was one of five bedrooms. The three other bedrooms were used by the landlord and their two children. The fourth bedroom was reserved as a guest bedroom for the use of the landlord’s guests. The premises were therefore used principally - that is, more than half of the premises - as a place of residence by the landlord and their family. b. The bedroom did not have cooking facilities beyond a microwave and a hot water jug. Clause 4.2 of the House Sharing Agreement provided: “The flatmate must not undertake any substantial cooking activity in their room or use their own cooking appliances in their room without the prior approval of the landlord. The flatmate agrees and understands that they are not renting a self-contained dwelling and are expected to use the shared kitchen space.” c. The tenant shared not only the kitchen and laundry facilities with the landlord’s family, but also the living/dining room and the garage to all of which she had free access. d. The landlord was responsible for keeping the common areas and their bedrooms clean and the tenant was responsible for cleaning her room. e. The advertisement for the room made it clear that a “Flatmate” was wanted and the parties entered into a House Sharing Agreement that accurately reflects the living arrangements.
The dispute between the parties related to some small areas of minor damage and the Bond Centre holds the balance of the bond after the deduction of the landlord’s cost of repairs. Both parties agreed that the Tribunal was to have jurisdiction to determine this single dispute between them so that all matters could be resolved without the further delay involved in making an application to the Disputes Tribunal.
This was a practical concession by the landlord and does not impose upon them any obligation or liability under the RTA from which the landlord remains excluded.
The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged a windowsill, the wall below it and a small area of 15 cm on the opposite wall. He provided: a. Photographic evidence of the damage. b. Photographic evidence of the premises from the advertisement seeking a flatmate. c. A statement from the previous occupant confirming that the damage was not present at the end of her occupancy. d. Evidence of quotations obtained to have the work completed. e. A copy of the paid invoice when the work was completed.
The tenant did not claim that the damage was fair wear and tear. She denied that the damage had occurred during the tenancy. She supplied photographic evidence of other damage to the walls, but no photographic evidence of the walls on which the landlord claimed the damage occurred.
The landlord confirmed that they were not seeking compensation for the repair of holes left by a television bracket, a picture hook and some other minor abrasions. He confirmed that the repairs carried out were only of the areas on the windowsill, the wall beneath it and the 15 cm area.
Having reviewed the evidence supplied by both parties, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the damage was caused during the tenancy and that it was careless damage.
The landlord has tried to minimise the cost of the repair and the Tribunal is satisfied that the amount claimed is fair and reasonable without any element of betterment.
The Tribunal confirms that the landlord is entitled to retain the $362.25 held from the bond and that the balance of the bond in the Bond Centre of $507.75 is to be refunded to the tenant.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the balance of the bond of $507.75 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The Tribunal confirms that the landlord can retain the $362.25 received from the bond for repairs.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The Tribunal had first to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The landlord relied on the exclusion in section 5(1)(n) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) which provides that the RTA shall not apply “where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family”.
The Tribunal has determined that the RTA does not apply for the following reasons: a. The bedroom with ensuite rented by the tenant was one of five bedrooms. The three other bedrooms were used by the landlord and their two children. The fourth bedroom was reserved as a guest bedroom for the use of the landlord’s guests. The premises were therefore used principally - that is, more than half of the premises - as a place of residence by the landlord and their family. b. The bedroom did not have cooking facilities beyond a microwave and a hot water jug. Clause 4.2 of the House Sharing Agreement provided: “The flatmate must not undertake any substantial cooking activity in their room or use their own cooking appliances in their room without the prior approval of the landlord. The flatmate agrees and understands that they are not renting a self-contained dwelling and are expected to use the shared kitchen space.” c. The tenant shared not only the kitchen and laundry facilities with the landlord’s family, but also the living/dining room and the garage to all of which she had free access. d. The landlord was responsible for keeping the common areas and their bedrooms clean and the tenant was responsible for cleaning her room. e. The advertisement for the room made it clear that a “Flatmate” was wanted and the parties entered into a House Sharing Agreement that accurately reflects the living arrangements.
The dispute between the parties related to some small areas of minor damage and the Bond Centre holds the balance of the bond after the deduction of the landlord’s cost of repairs. Both parties agreed that the Tribunal was to have jurisdiction to determine this single dispute between them so that all matters could be resolved without the further delay involved in making an application to the Disputes Tribunal.
This was a practical concession by the landlord and does not impose upon them any obligation or liability under the RTA from which the landlord remains excluded.
The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged a windowsill, the wall below it and a small area of 15 cm on the opposite wall. He provided: a. Photographic evidence of the damage. b. Photographic evidence of the premises from the advertisement seeking a flatmate. c. A statement from the previous occupant confirming that the damage was not present at the end of her occupancy. d. Evidence of quotations obtained to have the work completed. e. A copy of the paid invoice when the work was completed.
The tenant did not claim that the damage was fair wear and tear. She denied that the damage had occurred during the tenancy. She supplied photographic evidence of other damage to the walls, but no photographic evidence of the walls on which the landlord claimed the damage occurred.
The landlord confirmed that they were not seeking compensation for the repair of holes left by a television bracket, a picture hook and some other minor abrasions. He confirmed that the repairs carried out were only of the areas on the windowsill, the wall beneath it and the 15 cm area.
Having reviewed the evidence supplied by both parties, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the damage was caused during the tenancy and that it was careless damage.
The landlord has tried to minimise the cost of the repair and the Tribunal is satisfied that the amount claimed is fair and reasonable without any element of betterment.
The Tribunal confirms that the landlord is entitled to retain the $362.25 held from the bond and that the balance of the bond in the Bond Centre of $507.75 is to be refunded to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5503670 — Cleanliness at 103 Bowenvale Avenue, Cashmere, Christchurch 8022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5503670 — Cleanliness at 103 Bowenvale Avenue, Cashmere, Christchurch 8022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions