What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4803857?

The tribunal order states: Julie Patricia Quinn to pay Csi Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4803857?

Floor (Half: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rangehood Light: $212.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4803857?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4803857?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10200820-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4803857?

The tribunal order states: Julie Patricia Quinn to pay Csi Property Management Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4803857?

Floor (Half: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rangehood Light: $212.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4803857?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4803857?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10200820-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

55A Godden Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4803857 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

55A Godden Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4803857 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4803857 — net $672.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Rangehood light	$212.75	Repairs: Rangehood light
Repairs: Floor (half	$460.00	Repairs: Floor (half
Net award	$672.75
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$672.75

Claims and awards for application 4803857 — net $672.75 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: Rangehood light

Amount: $212.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Rangehood light

Repairs: Floor (half

Amount: $460.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Floor (half

Net award

Landlord $672.75

Bond

Landlord $2,000.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $672.75

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage

Order

Julie Patricia Quinn to pay Csi Property Management Limited As Agent For Michelle Bushett $672.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (5609301-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Csi Property Management Limited As Agent For Michelle Bushett: $672.75 Julie Patricia Quinn: $1,327.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The parties had agreed to the release of part of the bond on 21 March 2024. The amount remaining of the $4,600.00 bond with the Bond Centre is $2,000.00.
The tenant has applied for refund of the remaining bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation for repairs to damage caused during the tenancy.
The damage relates to a rangehood light and the wooden flooring.
The tenant acknowledged causing the damage to the rangehood light although she did not consider it to be damage. She attempted to replace the bulb and the damage was caused although she said that she did not force it or put pressure on. She also did not advise the landlord of the damage as she is obligated to do under section 40(1)(d) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant also acknowledged causing the damage to the flooring where there are water marks as this was likely caused by her clothes steamer. The tenant does not agree that she caused the scuff marks to the flooring.
The landlord produced photographs of the floor damage which he says was caused before the current tenants moved in. The tenant says that the new tenants moved in on 16 January 2024 which is the same day as the tenant moved out.
The landlord produced a video of the damage to the flooring. In the video the dining chairs are stacked which I consider to be evidence that the new tenants were not living there at the date the video was taken. However, according to the tenant she gave the new tenants the keys to the premises on 16 January 2024 and it is likely that they moved some of their belongings in before the video was taken on 31 January 2024.
It is not certain that the damage from the scuffing was caused by this tenant as there was no end of tenancy inspection and the new tenants had access to the premises for at least two weeks. The landlord did not sight the damage until mid-February 2024. I have therefore reached the conclusion that this tenant cannot be held responsible for the scuffing marks on the floorboards.
I determine that the tenant is responsible for the costs of repairs for the damage to the rangehood light and the water stains on the floorboards. I have awarded half of the cost for repairing the floorboards to the landlord.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4803857 — net $672.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Rangehood light	$212.75	Repairs: Rangehood light
Repairs: Floor (half	$460.00	Repairs: Floor (half
Net award	$672.75
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$672.75

Claims and awards for application 4803857 — net $672.75 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Repairs: Rangehood light

Amount: $212.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Rangehood light

Repairs: Floor (half

Amount: $460.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Floor (half

Net award

Landlord $672.75

Bond

Landlord $2,000.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $672.75

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Property damage

Order

Julie Patricia Quinn to pay Csi Property Management Limited As Agent For Michelle Bushett $672.75 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (5609301-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Csi Property Management Limited As Agent For Michelle Bushett: $672.75 Julie Patricia Quinn: $1,327.25

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The parties had agreed to the release of part of the bond on 21 March 2024. The amount remaining of the $4,600.00 bond with the Bond Centre is $2,000.00.
The tenant has applied for refund of the remaining bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation for repairs to damage caused during the tenancy.
The damage relates to a rangehood light and the wooden flooring.
The tenant acknowledged causing the damage to the rangehood light although she did not consider it to be damage. She attempted to replace the bulb and the damage was caused although she said that she did not force it or put pressure on. She also did not advise the landlord of the damage as she is obligated to do under section 40(1)(d) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant also acknowledged causing the damage to the flooring where there are water marks as this was likely caused by her clothes steamer. The tenant does not agree that she caused the scuff marks to the flooring.
The landlord produced photographs of the floor damage which he says was caused before the current tenants moved in. The tenant says that the new tenants moved in on 16 January 2024 which is the same day as the tenant moved out.
The landlord produced a video of the damage to the flooring. In the video the dining chairs are stacked which I consider to be evidence that the new tenants were not living there at the date the video was taken. However, according to the tenant she gave the new tenants the keys to the premises on 16 January 2024 and it is likely that they moved some of their belongings in before the video was taken on 31 January 2024.
It is not certain that the damage from the scuffing was caused by this tenant as there was no end of tenancy inspection and the new tenants had access to the premises for at least two weeks. The landlord did not sight the damage until mid-February 2024. I have therefore reached the conclusion that this tenant cannot be held responsible for the scuffing marks on the floorboards.
I determine that the tenant is responsible for the costs of repairs for the damage to the rangehood light and the water stains on the floorboards. I have awarded half of the cost for repairing the floorboards to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4803857 — Property damage at 55A Godden Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4803857 — Property damage at 55A Godden Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

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