What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4814241?

The tribunal order states: Neil Bradley and Sophie Bradley must pay Kevin Billington and Kate Donaldson

How much money was awarded in case 4814241?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4814241?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4814241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10987639-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4814241?

The tribunal order states: Neil Bradley and Sophie Bradley must pay Kevin Billington and Kate Donaldson

How much money was awarded in case 4814241?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4814241?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4814241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10987639-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

74A Goodall Street, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4814241 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Neil Bradley and Sophie Bradley must pay Kevin Billington and Kate Donaldson $150.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This was a partial rehearing of a single issue.
On 11 July 2024, the Tribunal issued a decision ordering the Bond Centre to pay out $3,844.38 of the bond to the tenants and the remainder to the landlords.
The landlords applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision on about 19 July 2024 based on the grounds: The tenants lodged a 106 page document, the day before the hearing that was full of lies and misleading information that the Judge relied on in making his judgement for the tenants
On 14 August 2024 the hearing of the rehearing application was heard. In his decision the next day (15 August 2024) the previous adjudicator ordered a partial rehearing of the landlord’s piano claim only. The reasons are not repeated here but essentially it was to enable the landlord an opportunity to prepare to respond to what had been a late tenant submission regarding the piano.
The landlord filed an appeal to the District Court on 28 August 2024. That application appears silent on the piano claim which was still to be reheard per the earlier Tribunal order of 15 August 2024. As at the date of this hearing, no date for the appeal to be heard had been set.
An applicant bringing a claim in the Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim on the civil standard of proof which is the balance of probabilities (that is, that it is more likely than not). It is up to an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claim to the required standard. If an applicant fails to do that, then the claim must be dismissed whether it has merit or not. When assessing whether the burden of proof has been discharged, the Tribunal considers and evaluates the information and evidence presented by both parties, and is also required to take into account the substantial merits and justice.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to piano?

The landlord application sought $2,300 as compensation of damage to their piano.
By the date of the hearing the claim was more specific, being $150.00 for an expert assessment of the piano’s condition and $1,500 (ex GST) as the estimated cost to replace the key covers with off white plastic key coverings and find three second-hand black keys to prepare and reglue onto the piano.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
The landlord relies on a tenant screenshot to establish the approximate condition around the commencement of the tenancy. The tenancy commenced 27 August 2022 and the screenshot was from March 2023.
The history of the piano was explained as being Kate’s since she was five years old. It is a J Brinsmead upright piano of uncertain but considerable age.
At the commencement of the tenancy one black key had detached but it was not attended to at that time.
The piano has, and continues, to reside at this address from June 2015 when the owners moved in. It has seen up to three tenancies since. I consider it a chattel and not a personal item stored at the premises.
Its condition was described by Jenkin Piano Service Ltd (report dated 30 August 2024), after inspection, as “aged and out of tune but... tunable as a beginner’s instrument. Tuning has been neglected.”
The same report also stated: They key coverings are Celluloid. Many front edges have been chipped or broken off. While the material is brittle. I was today unable to break any off with my bare fingers. In more than 40 years as a piano tuner I have never seen this type of damage caused simply by playing the piano with your fingers. It has always been caused by hitting the keys with something hard. There are in addition 9 black keys unglued and some are chipped. 3 black keys are missing. The glue holding them on does deteriorate over time and it is relatively simple to reglue them.
The report concludes with an estimate of cost for repair and any pitch raising and tuning.
The tenant’s position may be summarised as: • the piano had suffered severe degradation under both normal and non-use due to age, the keys becoming brittle. • the piano was old, unmaintained and abandoned to the rental. As a chattel, it is decades beyond the end of its expected life. They argued they have no responsibility for costs as it was beyond its “expected life”. • They provided market-based proof that the piano was essentially worthless.
The landlord considered the piano had further practical use as well as sentimental value. It was planned for the piano to be “handed down” to a cousin for her daughter to learn the piano on.
A piano is a heavy instrument that is difficult to move. Assessment of present value, particularly for older pianos via online marketplaces such as Trade Me, is muddied due to the effort and cost of the alternative option of removal or disposal. It is not unusual to see a $1 reserve on a piano in better shape than how this piano presents, with the pre-condition the purchaser must pick it up.
One local posting of a few years back on this very subject summarised what I consider a not unusual predicament for old pianos and the owners.
I copy below the best comparative photos, noting the lack of any entry photo by the landlord to establish the entry condition.
In my view, the comparative photos confirm the piano was not in great condition at the start but that the obvious, later damage to the keys appears consistent with the assessment by David Jenkin of some force applied. The brittle state would not have helped but I do not consider that alone can account for the damage.
I consider the damage evidenced is more than fair wear and tear from expected use, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Is there a loss to the landlord?

It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
I agree with the tenant that the piano has passed its economic life. There is limited evidence of ongoing maintenance. However, the age is not a total defence in my mind and it appears to have had the potential for further useful life. It has been used well beyond the economic life and has been confirmed to have further life, albeit via relegation to “suitable for a beginner” status.
The landlord claim of sentimental value diminishes in my view as the piano remained in-situ through a number of tenancies, and still remains there today as a chattel in the now preferred short-term accommodation stays sought by the landlord. Even if accepted, calculating how such a loss might be compensated is problematic.
That stated, I acknowledge both the cost and content of the expert report commissioned by the landlord. The landlord committed $150.00 (invoice dated 30 August 2024) to have an inspection and report about the piano prepared. The expert believes an investment in tuning would give it some further use for a beginner. Nothing to the piano has been done since and the continued location in a transitory premises exposes it to further possible deterioration.
I consider there should be some recognition of what might best be categorised as loss due to accelerated depreciation. The loss may be viewed as the loss of opportunity to “pass on” the piano, either to extended family as intended, or via a “$1 auction with removal on the buyer” or equivalent. The cost of the investigation and report may also be considered a loss to the landlord as the underlying need for it was to assess repair options.
Having considered the respective evidence and submissions, as well as the substantial merits and justice of the situation, I have determined the tenant should compensate the landlord by paying $150.00. That offsets the cost of report, contributes to any repair, or any disposal cost – however the landlord wishes to apply it.
I make no order regarding the application filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The tenant requested suppression in its application. They have not been successful in this rehearing of the landlord application and suppression is declined.
The landlord did not seek any suppression and no order for this is made.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4814241 — Tenancy dispute at 74A Goodall Street, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4814241 — Tenancy dispute at 74A Goodall Street, Hillsborough, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to piano?

Is there a loss to the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to piano?

Is there a loss to the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions