How much money was awarded in case 4817297?

Wall: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4817297?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4817297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10510886-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4817297?

Wall: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4817297?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4817297?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10510886-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Aporo Drive, Kumeu, Kumeu 0810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4817297 — Property damage

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4817297?

The tribunal order states: Letitia Nascimento and Jesse Monn to pay Vista Realty Limited Acting Agent

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4817297 — net $750.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: wall	$750.00	Repairs: wall
Net award	$750.00
Bond	$856.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$750.00

Letitia Nascimento and Jesse Monn to pay Vista Realty Limited Acting Agent For Ian Boocock $750.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $856.50 (6207610-011) immediately apportioned as follows: Vista Realty Limited Acting Agent For Ian Boocock: $750.00 Letitia Nascimento and Jesse Monn: $106.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of part of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has since been refunded part of their bond leaving behind $856.50 with the bond centre pending resolution of the landlord’s claim for compensation for wall repairs.

The landlord confirms that they are only seeking costs to replaster and repaint the damaged areas of the wall which the landlord considers to have been inadequately repaired by the tradespeople engaged by the tenant. The tenant has paid $150.00 for their tradesperson’s work.

The tenant considers that the repairs undertaken by Fairview Construction to be adequate and in any event, the tenant submits that the initial damage to the wall was accidental only (which was caused by their young child).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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.

I find that the wall damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Having viewed the photographs of the area of the wall in question, I consider that the tenant’s tradesperson has not repaired the damaged area in a good tradesmanlike manner and the area was also painted with a visibly different colour of paint to the rest of the undamaged areas of the wall.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Only the amounts ordered are proved. The bond apportionment above reflects my finding on the tenant’s liability accordingly.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4817297 — net $750.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: wall	$750.00	Repairs: wall
Net award	$750.00
Bond	$856.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$750.00

Letitia Nascimento and Jesse Monn to pay Vista Realty Limited Acting Agent For Ian Boocock $750.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $856.50 (6207610-011) immediately apportioned as follows: Vista Realty Limited Acting Agent For Ian Boocock: $750.00 Letitia Nascimento and Jesse Monn: $106.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of part of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has since been refunded part of their bond leaving behind $856.50 with the bond centre pending resolution of the landlord’s claim for compensation for wall repairs.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

I find that the wall damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Only the amounts ordered are proved. The bond apportionment above reflects my finding on the tenant’s liability accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4817297 — Property damage at 8 Aporo Drive, Kumeu, Kumeu 0810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4817297 — Property damage at 8 Aporo Drive, Kumeu, Kumeu 0810

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions