What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4558035?

The tribunal order states: Charlie Hankins, Chum Hay, Grady Walshe, Harrison Smith, Jack Sturm, Kieran

How much money was awarded in case 4558035?

Lightbulbs: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4558035?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4558035?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9196354-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4558035?

The tribunal order states: Charlie Hankins, Chum Hay, Grady Walshe, Harrison Smith, Jack Sturm, Kieran

How much money was awarded in case 4558035?

Lightbulbs: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $350.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4558035?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4558035?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9196354-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Waipapa Terrace, Hataitai, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4558035 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4558035 — net $670.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$200.00	Window repairs
Electrical fittings replacement/repair (battens	$100.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair (battens
Light bulbs/batteries	$20.00	Light bulbs/batteries
Repairs: walls	$350.00	Repairs: walls
Net award	$670.00
Bond	$7,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$670.00

Charlie Hankins, Chum Hay, Grady Walshe, Harrison Smith, Jack Sturm, Kieran Thomas, Milan Kriletich, Mitchell Park, Zack Lee Ihaia Paterson and Zaruga Limited Aaron Blain Paterson to pay Warwick Walbran As Trustee For Raewar Trustees Limited $670.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $7,200.00 (3407469-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Warwick Walbran As Trustee For Raewar Trustees Limited: $670.00 Charlie Hankins, Chum Hay, Grady Walshe, Harrison Smith, Jack Sturm, Kieran Thomas, Milan Kriletich, Mitchell Park, Zack Lee Ihaia Paterson and Zaruga Limited Aaron Blain Paterson: $6,530.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenant seeks costs against the landlord for attending the hearing and defending the landlord’s claims.

The tenancy ended on 21 January 2023.

Did the tenant 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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The landlord contends that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

However little evidence has been adduced by the landlord to substantiate his claim for rubbish removal and cleaning costs in excess of $3,000. No photographs or invoices have been adduced on the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy. Only the landlord’s plastering contractor Maka Fakalago was called to give oral evidence on the state of the premises.

Photographs of the property adduced by the tenant before the commencement of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy show that the premises have been left reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant also paid over $500 to a professional cleaner to attend to an exit clean.

For those reasons the landlord failed to substantiate his claim that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.

The landlord says that he had to replace light bulbs and light battens.

However no invoices or receipts or photographs have been submitted. The onus of proving the claim lies with the landlord.

The amounts ordered against the tenant for replacement of light bulbs.and battens are based only on the tenant’s acknowledgement and acceptance of a small part of the landlord’s claims.

Only the amounts ordered are proved.

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.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

The landlord has not satisfied the Tribunal that the windows, walls, door and oven were damaged during the tenancy. No photographs have been adduced by the landlord. No invoices pertaining to door repairs, painting and plastering were adduced. Mere reference to Mr Fakalago is insufficient.

On the contrary, the tenant’s evidence and photographs show that much of the damage complained by the landlord are pre-existing at the start of the tenancy in December 2021 and on the date the tenants moved into the premises in February 2022.

The amounts ordered against the tenant for repairs to walls and windows are based only on the tenant’s acknowledgement and acceptance of those parts of the landlord’s claims.

The tenant has also disproved liability for the damage to the security lights which is not within the control of the tenant. The security light is situated at an adjacent garage which is not part of the tenancy and in a public area where damage could have been done by other people.

Finally the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award costs to the tenant and the guarantor of the tenancy for time and expenses involved in preparing and attending today’s hearing. See section 102 RTA

Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4558035 — net $670.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$200.00	Window repairs
Electrical fittings replacement/repair (battens	$100.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair (battens
Light bulbs/batteries	$20.00	Light bulbs/batteries
Repairs: walls	$350.00	Repairs: walls
Net award	$670.00
Bond	$7,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$670.00

Order

Charlie Hankins, Chum Hay, Grady Walshe, Harrison Smith, Jack Sturm, Kieran Thomas, Milan Kriletich, Mitchell Park, Zack Lee Ihaia Paterson and Zaruga Limited Aaron Blain Paterson to pay Warwick Walbran As Trustee For Raewar Trustees Limited $670.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $7,200.00 (3407469-008) immediately apportioned as follows: Warwick Walbran As Trustee For Raewar Trustees Limited: $670.00 Charlie Hankins, Chum Hay, Grady Walshe, Harrison Smith, Jack Sturm, Kieran Thomas, Milan Kriletich, Mitchell Park, Zack Lee Ihaia Paterson and Zaruga Limited Aaron Blain Paterson: $6,530.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenant seeks costs against the landlord for attending the hearing and defending the landlord’s claims.
The tenancy ended on 21 January 2023.

Did the tenant 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, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord contends that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.
However little evidence has been adduced by the landlord to substantiate his claim for rubbish removal and cleaning costs in excess of $3,000. No photographs or invoices have been adduced on the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy. Only the landlord’s plastering contractor Maka Fakalago was called to give oral evidence on the state of the premises.
Photographs of the property adduced by the tenant before the commencement of the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy show that the premises have been left reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant also paid over $500 to a professional cleaner to attend to an exit clean.
For those reasons the landlord failed to substantiate his claim that the premises were not left reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord says that he had to replace light bulbs and light battens.
However no invoices or receipts or photographs have been submitted. The onus of proving the claim lies with the landlord.
The amounts ordered against the tenant for replacement of light bulbs.and battens are based only on the tenant’s acknowledgement and acceptance of a small part of the landlord’s claims.
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

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.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The landlord has not satisfied the Tribunal that the windows, walls, door and oven were damaged during the tenancy. No photographs have been adduced by the landlord. No invoices pertaining to door repairs, painting and plastering were adduced. Mere reference to Mr Fakalago is insufficient.
On the contrary, the tenant’s evidence and photographs show that much of the damage complained by the landlord are pre-existing at the start of the tenancy in December 2021 and on the date the tenants moved into the premises in February 2022.
The amounts ordered against the tenant for repairs to walls and windows are based only on the tenant’s acknowledgement and acceptance of those parts of the landlord’s claims.
The tenant has also disproved liability for the damage to the security lights which is not within the control of the tenant. The security light is situated at an adjacent garage which is not part of the tenancy and in a public area where damage could have been done by other people.
Finally the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award costs to the tenant and the guarantor of the tenancy for time and expenses involved in preparing and attending today’s hearing. See section 102 RTA
Only the amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4558035 — Property damage at 6 Waipapa Terrace, Hataitai, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4558035 — Property damage at 6 Waipapa Terrace, Hataitai, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions