What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4653372?

The tribunal order states: Daniel Barthow, Steve Parker, June Lamb, Gary Grut, Izak Van Niekerk,

How much money was awarded in case 4653372?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $9,575.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4653372?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4653372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10516397-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4653372?

The tribunal order states: Daniel Barthow, Steve Parker, June Lamb, Gary Grut, Izak Van Niekerk,

How much money was awarded in case 4653372?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $9,575.95 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4653372?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4653372?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10516397-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

68 Mili Way South, Ranui, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4653372 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4653372 — net $8,356.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$9,575.95	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,356.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,356.39

Order

Daniel Barthow, Steve Parker, June Lamb, Gary Grut, Izak Van Niekerk, Andrew Fraser And Maliena Jones As Trustees Of Visionwest Community Trust must pay Elvin Ram $8,356.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 (5924520 005) to Elvin Ram immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
A hearing was held in October 2023 to consider whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction in respect of this tenancy. An order dated 25 October 2023 determined that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction and the application was set down for a substantive hearing on 1 July 2024.
The tenancy began on 26 October 2017. The tenant became a sublandlord during the tenancy, but the earlier decision of the Tribunal determined that the parties contracted back into the Act.
The tenancy ended on 21 July 2023.
The first subtenant vacated the premises without notice in February 2023. The landlord became aware of significant repairs that were required at the premises. At the hearing the tenant produced an inspection report dated 22 February 2023 which outlines some of the damage that needed repairing. The tenant also produced an invoice dated 5 April 2023 detailing the repairs carried out.
The tenant submits that the premises were in a reasonable condition after these repairs were carried out. The tenant also submitted that the tenancy was not at an end and repairs were to a standard acceptable for another tenancy.
The landlord submits that he carried out repairs from April 2023 until the tenant had another subtenant move into the premises around June 2023 as well as some repairs around the time that the tenancy ended. Those repairs were either for damage that the tenant did not repair or had repaired to what the landlord thought was unacceptable standard.
The landlord is seeking reimbursement of costs as set out in the invoice dated 1 August 2023. The landlord does not seek the other costs as detailed in his application.
The tenant submitted two further invoices for work carried out before the tenancy ended. Those invoices are dated 24 July 2023 and 13 September 2023.
The issue is whether the landlord should be reimbursed for the repairs that he carried out at this tenancy. It is necessary for me to determine whether the damage occurred during this tenancy being between 26 October 2017 and 21 July 2023. In addition, I need to determine whether the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Wall repairs
After considering the photographs submitted, I accept that the tenant did carry out repairs to the walls of the premises. Most of that work was carried out after the end of the first subtenancy. However, I consider that the repairs were not to an acceptable standard.
Although the landlord carried out repairs before the tenancy ended the tenant is still liable for the damage. In the photographs submitted the tenant had not adequately repaired the holes or painted the walls to a reasonable standard. The tenant suggested that the landlord had a higher expectation in relation to the repairs and the repairs that he carried out were to increase the value of the property rather than to reinstate it to a reasonable condition.
On the evidence I accept that the landlord needed to carry out further repairs and painting to the walls beyond the repairs carried out by the tenant. Interior doors
The landlord claims for repairs to interior doors. In the inspection report dated 22 February 2023 the photographs show a door that requires repairing and painting.
The tenant’s invoice records that the door to the passage was painted. The report does not identify the damaged door and whether it is the door to the passage. There are no comments in relation to a lounge door that needs repair.
Given this uncertainty I accept the landlord’s claim that the door needed repairing. Roof repairs
The subtenant damaged the roof tiles by walking on the roof, throwing rubbish on the roof and tipping cooking oil on the tiles.
The landlord had emailed the tenant about some of the concerns in relation to the roof in September 2022.
Given the evidence submitted I accept that the tenant is responsible for the damage to the roof. Bathroom tiles
There was a cracked bathroom tile and chipping to other tiles.
The tenant said that he did not know how the chipping occurred and it was not recorded in any inspection report.
I note that the chips are visible in some of the photographs in the inspection report dated 27 April 2023.
I accept that the tenant is responsible for this damage. Wardrobe
The landlord claims for repairs to the wardrobe. He said that the tenant did not carry out any repairs to the inside of the wardrobes. There is no mention of wardrobe repairs in the tenant’s repair invoice.
I accept that the tenant is responsible for the repairs required to the wardrobes. Repaint after final inspection
The landlord claims for repainting that was required at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant acknowledged that when the contractors carried out the wall repairs just before the tenancy ended the incorrect paint colour was used and the tenant had run out of time to fix this.
The landlord had to rectify this after the tenancy ended. Bond
At the beginning of the tenancy the tenant paid a bond of $1,240.00. The bond was lodged with the Bond Centre.
At some stage the Bond Centre considered that the bond was “unclaimed” by the parties when the tenant lodged another bond as sublandlord in 2017.
The Bond Centre will need to retrieve the bond money from the “unclaimed” classification so that it can be refunded to the landlord in accordance with this order.
Because Elvin Ram has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4653372 — net $8,356.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$9,575.95	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,356.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,356.39

Order

Daniel Barthow, Steve Parker, June Lamb, Gary Grut, Izak Van Niekerk, Andrew Fraser And Maliena Jones As Trustees Of Visionwest Community Trust must pay Elvin Ram $8,356.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,240.00 (5924520 005) to Elvin Ram immediately.
All remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
A hearing was held in October 2023 to consider whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction in respect of this tenancy. An order dated 25 October 2023 determined that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction and the application was set down for a substantive hearing on 1 July 2024.
The tenancy began on 26 October 2017. The tenant became a sublandlord during the tenancy, but the earlier decision of the Tribunal determined that the parties contracted back into the Act.
The tenancy ended on 21 July 2023.
The first subtenant vacated the premises without notice in February 2023. The landlord became aware of significant repairs that were required at the premises. At the hearing the tenant produced an inspection report dated 22 February 2023 which outlines some of the damage that needed repairing. The tenant also produced an invoice dated 5 April 2023 detailing the repairs carried out.
The tenant submits that the premises were in a reasonable condition after these repairs were carried out. The tenant also submitted that the tenancy was not at an end and repairs were to a standard acceptable for another tenancy.
The landlord submits that he carried out repairs from April 2023 until the tenant had another subtenant move into the premises around June 2023 as well as some repairs around the time that the tenancy ended. Those repairs were either for damage that the tenant did not repair or had repaired to what the landlord thought was unacceptable standard.
The landlord is seeking reimbursement of costs as set out in the invoice dated 1 August 2023. The landlord does not seek the other costs as detailed in his application.
The tenant submitted two further invoices for work carried out before the tenancy ended. Those invoices are dated 24 July 2023 and 13 September 2023.
The issue is whether the landlord should be reimbursed for the repairs that he carried out at this tenancy. It is necessary for me to determine whether the damage occurred during this tenancy being between 26 October 2017 and 21 July 2023. In addition, I need to determine whether the damage is more than fair wear and tear. Wall repairs
After considering the photographs submitted, I accept that the tenant did carry out repairs to the walls of the premises. Most of that work was carried out after the end of the first subtenancy. However, I consider that the repairs were not to an acceptable standard.
Although the landlord carried out repairs before the tenancy ended the tenant is still liable for the damage. In the photographs submitted the tenant had not adequately repaired the holes or painted the walls to a reasonable standard. The tenant suggested that the landlord had a higher expectation in relation to the repairs and the repairs that he carried out were to increase the value of the property rather than to reinstate it to a reasonable condition.
On the evidence I accept that the landlord needed to carry out further repairs and painting to the walls beyond the repairs carried out by the tenant. Interior doors
The landlord claims for repairs to interior doors. In the inspection report dated 22 February 2023 the photographs show a door that requires repairing and painting.
The tenant’s invoice records that the door to the passage was painted. The report does not identify the damaged door and whether it is the door to the passage. There are no comments in relation to a lounge door that needs repair.
Given this uncertainty I accept the landlord’s claim that the door needed repairing. Roof repairs
The subtenant damaged the roof tiles by walking on the roof, throwing rubbish on the roof and tipping cooking oil on the tiles.
The landlord had emailed the tenant about some of the concerns in relation to the roof in September 2022.
Given the evidence submitted I accept that the tenant is responsible for the damage to the roof. Bathroom tiles
There was a cracked bathroom tile and chipping to other tiles.
The tenant said that he did not know how the chipping occurred and it was not recorded in any inspection report.
I note that the chips are visible in some of the photographs in the inspection report dated 27 April 2023.
I accept that the tenant is responsible for this damage. Wardrobe
The landlord claims for repairs to the wardrobe. He said that the tenant did not carry out any repairs to the inside of the wardrobes. There is no mention of wardrobe repairs in the tenant’s repair invoice.
I accept that the tenant is responsible for the repairs required to the wardrobes. Repaint after final inspection
The landlord claims for repainting that was required at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant acknowledged that when the contractors carried out the wall repairs just before the tenancy ended the incorrect paint colour was used and the tenant had run out of time to fix this.
The landlord had to rectify this after the tenancy ended. Bond
At the beginning of the tenancy the tenant paid a bond of $1,240.00. The bond was lodged with the Bond Centre.
At some stage the Bond Centre considered that the bond was “unclaimed” by the parties when the tenant lodged another bond as sublandlord in 2017.
The Bond Centre will need to retrieve the bond money from the “unclaimed” classification so that it can be refunded to the landlord in accordance with this order.
Because Elvin Ram has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4653372 — Property damage at 68 Mili Way South, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4653372 — Property damage at 68 Mili Way South, Ranui, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions