Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 4844421 — Property damage at 23 Dowling Grove, Silverstream, Upper Hutt 5019
Decided 22 May 2024 · Published 22 May 2024 · Application 4844421
Landlord favoured
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
Order
- Aiden James Karehana, Connor Gregory Piper, Brayden Grant Lomax and Simon John Nathan Scully must pay Michael James Sceats $2,485.80 calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Kitchen cupboard repair - Insurance Excess$1,000.00 Repair wooden floor s - Insurance Excess$1,000.00 Rug replacement - depreciated 20%$1,174.48 Cleaning$450.00 Repairs: to walls$500.00 Carpet Cleaning$260.00 Lawns and Garden work$300.00 Door stops and electric plug$55.01 Window repairs: glass only$193.56 Heat pump remote$71.31 Light shade$123.83 Letterbox$0.00 Repairs: middle bedroom door$74.70 Total award$5,485.80 Bond$3,000.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,485.80
- The landlord agreed to weekly payments of the amount owing. The $2,485.80 will be paid by 12 payments of $200.00 per week and a final payment of $85.80.
- The first payment will be on Tuesday, 28 May 2024 and then every week after that. The final payment will be on 20 August 2024.
- Default in any payment within 2 days of the due date results in the total outstanding being recoverable immediately by enforcement.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (5644798-002) to Michael James Sceats immediately.
Reasons
- All parties attended the hearing.
- The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
- Most of the items ordered were agreed by the tenants.
- Regarding the rugs that were removed by the tenants, they were about two and a half years old. 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. I have depreciated the replacement cost for the rugs by 20%.
- The landlord has claimed that the tenants removed the lock on the letterbox. It is possible that they removed the lock however I am unsure why that would be necessary in order to use an unlocked letterbox. The difficulty with claims about letterbox damage is that letterboxes are near the front of a property and near to where strangers walk. There is sufficient doubt regarding this claim for me to make an order in the landlord’s favour.
- The amounts ordered are proved.