How much money was awarded in case 4536953?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4536953?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4536953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9392872-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4536953?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4536953?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4536953?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9392872-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Ambar Ridge Avenue, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4536953 — Mould & damp

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4536953?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6358635-008) to Anton Aksiuta and Olena Aksiuta immediately.

Coogee Investments Limited must pay Anton Askiuta and Olena Aksiuta $20.44 as reimbursement of the filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants, Mr and Mrs Aksiuta, applied for refund of their bond; the landlord Mr Bacon, applied for compensation to repaint one interior wall and to replace the top part of an air-conditioning cover for an external unit.

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.

Mr Bacon provided information that the premises were new at the beginning of the tenancy.

Mr and Mrs Aksiuta provided information that the tenancy lasted almost three years and was for them and their two children who were both teenagers at the beginning of the tenancy.

The issues in question are established by photographs provided by the landlord. The photographs of the air conditioning cover unit shows the top of the unit with paint peeling on one part of it and some corrosion where the paint has lifted.

The photographs of the wall paint shows several marks on the wall which could be described as a variation in colour or finish.

It is accepted by both parties that the damage to the wall is to the surface of the paint; there is no peeling of the paint.

Mr and Mrs Aksiuta provided information that the marks to the wall were caused by a bed touching the wall and leaving a mark. When this mark was cleaned from the wall at the end of the tenancy, the finish of the paint took on a glossy appearance where it had originally had a matt finish. The change in the appearance is what Mr Bacon is referring to as the damage.

Mr Bacon accepted that neither of the issues in question are the result of an intentional act, but he claimed they are the result of carelessness.

Mr Bacon provided invoices for repair which are $245.00 to replace the air conditioning unit top cover, and $295.00 to lightly sand and repaint the wall.

A tenant is required to leave a premises reasonably clean and tidy. To not clean a mark left by a bed may have given rise to a claim for cleaning costs. After two years and nine months of four people living in a premises it is to be expected that there will be marks of varying degree that will need to cleaned. The heavier of these marks may need scrubbing, and this may alter the appearance of a surface. It is also to be expected that over time paint may change in appearance through fading or oxidisation, and that when cleaned the appearance may not revert to how it was when new.

I am not satisfied that the marks to the paint are the result of carelessness, even to the extent that they may have been caused by rigorous cleaning.

Nor am I satisfied that a careless act has caused the paint to lift on the air conditioning unit. Mr and Mrs Aksiuta pointed out that the unit is an outside unit, and they had not put anything on top of it that may have trapped moisture or otherwise caused the damage. Mr Bacon was unable to point to any act by Mr and Mrs Aksiuta that may have been careless. I am not satisfied in this instance, that the mere occurrence of deterioration of the paint points to an act of carelessness by anyone.

Because Anton Aksiuta, Olena Aksiuta has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 (6358635-008) to Anton Aksiuta and Olena Aksiuta immediately.
Coogee Investments Limited must pay Anton Askiuta and Olena Aksiuta $20.44 as reimbursement of the filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants, Mr and Mrs Aksiuta, applied for refund of their bond; the landlord Mr Bacon, applied for compensation to repaint one interior wall and to replace the top part of an air-conditioning cover for an external unit.

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.
Mr Bacon provided information that the premises were new at the beginning of the tenancy.
Mr and Mrs Aksiuta provided information that the tenancy lasted almost three years and was for them and their two children who were both teenagers at the beginning of the tenancy.
The issues in question are established by photographs provided by the landlord. The photographs of the air conditioning cover unit shows the top of the unit with paint peeling on one part of it and some corrosion where the paint has lifted.
The photographs of the wall paint shows several marks on the wall which could be described as a variation in colour or finish.
It is accepted by both parties that the damage to the wall is to the surface of the paint; there is no peeling of the paint.
Mr and Mrs Aksiuta provided information that the marks to the wall were caused by a bed touching the wall and leaving a mark. When this mark was cleaned from the wall at the end of the tenancy, the finish of the paint took on a glossy appearance where it had originally had a matt finish. The change in the appearance is what Mr Bacon is referring to as the damage.
Mr Bacon accepted that neither of the issues in question are the result of an intentional act, but he claimed they are the result of carelessness.
Mr Bacon provided invoices for repair which are $245.00 to replace the air conditioning unit top cover, and $295.00 to lightly sand and repaint the wall.
A tenant is required to leave a premises reasonably clean and tidy. To not clean a mark left by a bed may have given rise to a claim for cleaning costs. After two years and nine months of four people living in a premises it is to be expected that there will be marks of varying degree that will need to cleaned. The heavier of these marks may need scrubbing, and this may alter the appearance of a surface. It is also to be expected that over time paint may change in appearance through fading or oxidisation, and that when cleaned the appearance may not revert to how it was when new.
I am not satisfied that the marks to the paint are the result of carelessness, even to the extent that they may have been caused by rigorous cleaning.
Nor am I satisfied that a careless act has caused the paint to lift on the air conditioning unit. Mr and Mrs Aksiuta pointed out that the unit is an outside unit, and they had not put anything on top of it that may have trapped moisture or otherwise caused the damage. Mr Bacon was unable to point to any act by Mr and Mrs Aksiuta that may have been careless. I am not satisfied in this instance, that the mere occurrence of deterioration of the paint points to an act of carelessness by anyone.
Because Anton Aksiuta, Olena Aksiuta has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4536953 — Mould & damp at 29 Ambar Ridge Avenue, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4536953 — Mould & damp at 29 Ambar Ridge Avenue, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions