What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4707790?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (5236697-008) to Angeleana

How much money was awarded in case 4707790?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4707790?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4707790?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9877747-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4707790?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (5236697-008) to Angeleana

How much money was awarded in case 4707790?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4707790?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4707790?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9877747-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

162A Rimu Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4707790 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Paul Pickering and Angeleana Smith (also for Wayne Smith) attended the hearing on 24 January 2024.

Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal after the end of this nearly 8- year tenancy. The tenancy began on 13 February 2016 and ended in early October 2023.

In essence, the landlord is disappointed at the way that he sees the property was left and thinks the tenants should have done more.

The tenants are upset that the landlord is making a claim on the bond because they say that they took good care of the property during the long tenancy including repainting the inside of the house during the tenancy, staining the fence, cleaned out gutters and water-blasted the outside regularly, and undertook minor maintenance repairs themselves. They are disappointed that the landlord would make a claim from their bond in the circumstances. Decisions on landlord’s claims

I make the below decisions on the landlord’s claims:- a. I do not award the costs of lamp shades, lamp holders, light bulbs or curtain because there were no receipts given and it is not clear exactly what was missing. b. I award $50.00 towards the cost to dispose of timber left behind (this is my assessment as there was no receipt for any cost). c. I award $50.00 for two hours labour to clean paint marks from the laundry sink and to wipe cobwebs inside. d. I make no other award for cleaning or for the two marks on the carpet as the landlord has incurred no cost or loss and the carpet was at least 8 years old, if not older. The other work described as having been done by the landlord and his son is cleaning and water-blasting the outside of the premises which is generally the landlord’s responsibility. Decisions on the tenants’ claims

I make the below decisions on the tenants’ claims:- a. Foil underfloor insulation is permitted in tenancy premises if it was installed before 1 July 2016, was permitted as part of the initial building consent, and there has been no new tenancy entered into after this date. The landlord supplied a code compliance certificate for the house. This tenancy began before the compliance date. The tenants are concerned that two or three nails protruded through the foil from the flooring above and that this may have made it unsafe. There is no evidence to say that this is the case, and the foil appears to be otherwise in reasonable condition. I dismiss this claim. b. I agree that it is usually a landlord’s job to clean out gutters and waterblast or keep the outside of tenancy premises maintained. The tenants were happy to do this at the time but want the landlord to acknowledge that they did this, and it was to his benefit. I address the compensation below. c. My decision is the same as the above regarding the internal painting work. d. I accept that the tenants probably did replace minor fittings that broke during the tenancy at their cost, such as window latches and the toilet seat. They did not tell the landlord about the wear and tear at the time, so I do not award compensation now. It was their responsibility to replace smoke alarm batteries. e. The evidence was unclear as to whether the tenant living in the house at the time of the new kitchen installation was without water for several days. I dismiss this claim. f. The tenants provided no evidence to show that there was a maintenance problem with the third bedroom floor and the landlord gave a reasonable explanation. I dismiss this claim. g. The tenants attached exterior carpet to the outside stairs as they said these were slippery. The landlord said he had to remove this as it was holding water. There is no evidence to show a maintenance problem and any fixtures left behind by a tenant become the landlord’s property, so I make no award.

I do award $100.00 compensation to the tenants as recognition of the maintenance work they did during the tenancy and to balance the awards made to the landlord.

The Tribunal is required to make decisions efficiently and in the interests of justice (section 85 Residential Tenancies Act 1986). In my view, it is fair and reasonable that the tenants retain the full bond in the circumstances of this tenancy. The parties had worked well and pragmatically together during the whole tenancy and the evidence does not support the extent of the claims made by either party.

Neither party has been substantially successful, so I make no award for the filing fee and make no orders for suppression.

Reasons

Paul Pickering and Angeleana Smith (also for Wayne Smith) attended the hearing on 24 January 2024.

Both parties have made applications to the Tribunal after the end of this nearly 8- year tenancy. The tenancy began on 13 February 2016 and ended in early October 2023.

In essence, the landlord is disappointed at the way that he sees the property was left and thinks the tenants should have done more.

I do award $100.00 compensation to the tenants as recognition of the maintenance work they did during the tenancy and to balance the awards made to the landlord.

Neither party has been substantially successful, so I make no award for the filing fee and make no orders for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4707790 — Smoke alarms at 162A Rimu Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4707790 — Smoke alarms at 162A Rimu Street, Maeroa, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions