What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4564869?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4564869?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,723.99 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $549.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $271.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4564869?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4564869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9222567-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4564869?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4564869?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,723.99 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $549.25 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $271.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4564869?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4564869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9222567-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Portland Terrace, Dargaville 0310 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4564869 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4564869 — net $3,715.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to bathroom floor (water damage	$2,723.99	Repairs to bathroom floor (water damage
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	7. The amount claimed for carpet cleaning is fair and reasonable.
Window repairs: Glass pane in door	$271.85	Window repairs: Glass pane in door
Water rates	$549.25	2. The landlord’s application seeks water rates arrears, carpet cleaning, and repair costs.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,715.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,715.53

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Emma Ruka must pay North Island Community Services Ltd t/as Propertyscouts Whangarei (as agent for Sam & Nicole Scott) $3,715.53 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 2 May 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks water rates arrears, carpet cleaning, and repair costs.
The hearing took place in Whangarei today. Ms Skinner attended the hearing by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. There was no appearance by Ms Ruka. Water rates
There are outstanding water rates as follows: Balance outstanding from November 2022 invoice: $290.09 Water use from 7 November 2022 to 2 May 2023: $259.16. Carpet cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy 1 .
Ms Skinner’s photographs show that there were stains on the carpet in the master bedroom.
The amount claimed for carpet cleaning is fair and reasonable. Damage
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the tenancy 2 .
The claim seeks the cost of: a. Re-glazing a cracked glass pane in a door. b. Repair of water damaged areas in bathroom.
Ms Skinner provided a photograph showing several cracks in the bottom glass pane of the door, which has a catflap insert.
The damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
The cost of re-glazing is proven.
The landlord seeks the cost of repairing water damage to the bathroom floor on the grounds that the damage was caused by the tenant failing to use the shower curtain.
In support of this, Ms Skinner provided two statements from LCJ Builders (Mr Chrichton). 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 49B RTA
The first statement notes that he inspected the shower and bathroom floor on 24 February 2023.
Mr Chrichton states: The shower on inspection is being used with no shower curtain. The floor was clearly damp and wet. The floor has gone rotten and is leaking through to the basement. The skirting and gib is also very damp. [...] I also have pictures of the shower curtains with dust inside them so it’s obvious they’re not getting used if you measure from the edge of the door to where the leak which is in front of the shower nib wall, which is 900mm and go a measure downstairs it is exactly where the leak is coming through
Mr Chrichton states: Hi Sam and Nicole I inspected your property on Friday 28 [April 2023]. Water damage in the bathroom. Upon inspection it was clear the damage to the floor and surrounding area is from the tenants using the shower without a shower curtain. This is evidenced by the visible dust on the hooks where a curtain would be hung from and the pattern of the water damage on the floor. The damage has been caused by repeated and prolonged negligence by the tenant. Before these tenants took possession of this property the shower liner and mixer replaced this shower [sic]. At this time there was no evidence of any water damage in this area. This repeated and prolonged negligence has caused the floor to rot around the shower and potentially caused water damage to the basement ceiling lining.
Ms Skinner provided a video recording showing visible water damage in the basement area directly underneath the bathroom.
The video also shows the bathroom and the shower.
The shower tray appears to be intact and well sealed around its edge.
The shower is lined on three sides. There is a low wooden step / lip on the open side, which abuts onto the vinyl flooring. There is a basic shower curtain.
Ms Skinner confirmed that the damage was not covered by the landlord’s insurance. The claim seeks the full cost of repairs from the tenant.
My findings are: a. There is sufficient evidence to show that the water damage was caused by water not being kept within the shower area, and water being allowed to sit on the bathroom floor. There is no evidence of any leaks around the shower base or shower lining. There is no evidence of any pipe leaks. b. I accept that this is attributable to negligence by the tenant. Mr Chrichton’s statement shows that the pattern of damage is consistent with water coming from the shower and sitting on the bathroom floor. Mr Chrichton notes that it appears that the curtain was not being used (dust visible on the curtain). c. Ms Skinner’s video shows that the set up of the shower leaves the floor vulnerable to water damage, especially in the area directly in front of the shower. The shower curtain does not naturally ‘sit’ inside the wooden step / lip. It tends to sit on top of the step, or on the outside of it, on top of the bathroom floor. d. Mr Chrichton’s statement contains an ambiguous comment about the possibility of existing water damage. Mr Chricton states “before these tenants took possession of this property the shower liner and mixer replaced this shower. At this time there was no evidence of water damage in this area”. Mr Chricton may be meaning to say that he himself replaced the shower liner and mixer before the start of this tenancy, but the statement is unclear. e. My finding is that the tenant is liable for 85% of the repair costs claimed on the grounds that: i. There is sufficient evidence to establish that the water damage was due to negligence by the tenant. ii. The set-up of the shower creates a risk of water damage through ‘normal’ use. iii. The statement from Mr Chrichton is not sufficiently clear to eliminate the possibility of existing water damage in this area. Filing fee, bond
The landlord has been successful in this application, and I must award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.
The bond was released to the landlord in a previous Tenancy Tribunal order 3 . N Blake, 26 July 2023 3 North Island Community Services Ltd v Rika [2023] NZTT4511790. It is noted that the tenant’s name was spelled incorrectly in that Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4564869 — net $3,715.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to bathroom floor (water damage	$2,723.99	Repairs to bathroom floor (water damage
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	7. The amount claimed for carpet cleaning is fair and reasonable.
Window repairs: Glass pane in door	$271.85	Window repairs: Glass pane in door
Water rates	$549.25	2. The landlord’s application seeks water rates arrears, carpet cleaning, and repair costs.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,715.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,715.53

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Emma Ruka must pay North Island Community Services Ltd t/as Propertyscouts Whangarei (as agent for Sam & Nicole Scott) $3,715.53 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 2 May 2023.
The landlord’s application seeks water rates arrears, carpet cleaning, and repair costs.
The hearing took place in Whangarei today. Ms Skinner attended the hearing by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. There was no appearance by Ms Ruka. Water rates
There are outstanding water rates as follows: Balance outstanding from November 2022 invoice: $290.09 Water use from 7 November 2022 to 2 May 2023: $259.16. Carpet cleaning
Tenants must leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition at the end of the tenancy 1 .
Ms Skinner’s photographs show that there were stains on the carpet in the master bedroom.
The amount claimed for carpet cleaning is fair and reasonable. Damage
Tenants are liable for damage beyond fair wear and tear that occurs during the tenancy 2 .
The claim seeks the cost of: a. Re-glazing a cracked glass pane in a door. b. Repair of water damaged areas in bathroom.
Ms Skinner provided a photograph showing several cracks in the bottom glass pane of the door, which has a catflap insert.
The damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
The cost of re-glazing is proven.
The landlord seeks the cost of repairing water damage to the bathroom floor on the grounds that the damage was caused by the tenant failing to use the shower curtain.
In support of this, Ms Skinner provided two statements from LCJ Builders (Mr Chrichton). 1 Section 40(1)(e)(iii) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 49B RTA
The first statement notes that he inspected the shower and bathroom floor on 24 February 2023.
Mr Chrichton states: The shower on inspection is being used with no shower curtain. The floor was clearly damp and wet. The floor has gone rotten and is leaking through to the basement. The skirting and gib is also very damp. [...] I also have pictures of the shower curtains with dust inside them so it’s obvious they’re not getting used if you measure from the edge of the door to where the leak which is in front of the shower nib wall, which is 900mm and go a measure downstairs it is exactly where the leak is coming through
Mr Chrichton states: Hi Sam and Nicole I inspected your property on Friday 28 [April 2023]. Water damage in the bathroom. Upon inspection it was clear the damage to the floor and surrounding area is from the tenants using the shower without a shower curtain. This is evidenced by the visible dust on the hooks where a curtain would be hung from and the pattern of the water damage on the floor. The damage has been caused by repeated and prolonged negligence by the tenant. Before these tenants took possession of this property the shower liner and mixer replaced this shower [sic]. At this time there was no evidence of any water damage in this area. This repeated and prolonged negligence has caused the floor to rot around the shower and potentially caused water damage to the basement ceiling lining.
Ms Skinner provided a video recording showing visible water damage in the basement area directly underneath the bathroom.
The video also shows the bathroom and the shower.
The shower tray appears to be intact and well sealed around its edge.
The shower is lined on three sides. There is a low wooden step / lip on the open side, which abuts onto the vinyl flooring. There is a basic shower curtain.
Ms Skinner confirmed that the damage was not covered by the landlord’s insurance. The claim seeks the full cost of repairs from the tenant.
My findings are: a. There is sufficient evidence to show that the water damage was caused by water not being kept within the shower area, and water being allowed to sit on the bathroom floor. There is no evidence of any leaks around the shower base or shower lining. There is no evidence of any pipe leaks. b. I accept that this is attributable to negligence by the tenant. Mr Chrichton’s statement shows that the pattern of damage is consistent with water coming from the shower and sitting on the bathroom floor. Mr Chrichton notes that it appears that the curtain was not being used (dust visible on the curtain). c. Ms Skinner’s video shows that the set up of the shower leaves the floor vulnerable to water damage, especially in the area directly in front of the shower. The shower curtain does not naturally ‘sit’ inside the wooden step / lip. It tends to sit on top of the step, or on the outside of it, on top of the bathroom floor. d. Mr Chrichton’s statement contains an ambiguous comment about the possibility of existing water damage. Mr Chricton states “before these tenants took possession of this property the shower liner and mixer replaced this shower. At this time there was no evidence of water damage in this area”. Mr Chricton may be meaning to say that he himself replaced the shower liner and mixer before the start of this tenancy, but the statement is unclear. e. My finding is that the tenant is liable for 85% of the repair costs claimed on the grounds that: i. There is sufficient evidence to establish that the water damage was due to negligence by the tenant. ii. The set-up of the shower creates a risk of water damage through ‘normal’ use. iii. The statement from Mr Chrichton is not sufficiently clear to eliminate the possibility of existing water damage in this area. Filing fee, bond
The landlord has been successful in this application, and I must award the landlord the filing fee of $20.44.
The bond was released to the landlord in a previous Tenancy Tribunal order 3 . N Blake, 26 July 2023 3 North Island Community Services Ltd v Rika [2023] NZTT4511790. It is noted that the tenant’s name was spelled incorrectly in that Order

Tenancy Tribunal case 4564869 — Property damage at 9 Portland Terrace, Dargaville 0310

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4564869 — Property damage at 9 Portland Terrace, Dargaville 0310

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions