What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4668149?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $244.69 (6445168-001) to Marcelo

How much money was awarded in case 4668149?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4668149?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4668149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9943992-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4668149?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $244.69 (6445168-001) to Marcelo

How much money was awarded in case 4668149?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4668149?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4668149?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9943992-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13D Teal Crescent, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4668149 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $244.69 (6445168-001) to Marcelo Vasquez Castillo and Estefany Tonaca Azua immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties had attended a mediation conference on 7 September 2023. Agreement was reached at mediation that $2,635.31 of the $2,800.00 bond would be released to the tenants.
At issue following the mediation was the cost of repairs for the area where the tenants installed a baby gate. The amount of $244.69 remains in dispute. That amount is made up from the cost of repair, being $224.25 and the filing fee of $20.44.
The landlord claims that the premises were new prior to commencement of the tenancy. The tenants installed baby gates at the bottom and top of the stairs at the premises. No holes were made in the wall to attach the baby gates. Instead, the gates are pressure mounted. Initially the tenant had a length of wood between the gate and the wall but later removed this.
The landlord produced photographs with the application showing scuff marks on the walls and very faint staining possibly from the wood.
The tenants produced photographs at the hearing. The tenant said that these photographs were taken after they were given the opportunity to clean the area, whereas the landlord’s photographs were taken before the second clean.
The landlord claims the cost of painting both sides of the walls.
The first photographs show some scuff marks which I would consider to be wear and tear. The tenant’s photographs show no significant damage that would warrant an award against the tenants.
The tenancy was for just under 15 months. There will be some wear and tear to premises for a tenancy of that lenght. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient damage to warrant an award of costs against the tenants.
The landlord’s claim is dismissed. The disputed amount of bond held by the Bond Centre is released to the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4668149 — Tenancy dispute at 13D Teal Crescent, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4668149 — Tenancy dispute at 13D Teal Crescent, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Property management

Frequently asked questions