What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4952333?

The tribunal order states: Allister Moller and Brigette Atkinson to pay Deanne Lesley Lawrence and Ricky

How much money was awarded in case 4952333?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952333?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10956109-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4952333?

The tribunal order states: Allister Moller and Brigette Atkinson to pay Deanne Lesley Lawrence and Ricky

How much money was awarded in case 4952333?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952333?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10956109-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

107A Firth Street, Matamata, Matamata 3400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4952333 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4952333 — net $807.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Kitchen vinyl damage - insurance excess	$550.00	Kitchen vinyl damage - insurance excess
Repair architrave and external wall	$230.00	Repair architrave and external wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$807.00
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$807.00

Order

Allister Moller and Brigette Atkinson to pay Deanne Lesley Lawrence and Ricky John Lawrence $807.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlords’ other claim (carpet damage) is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (6505543-011) immediately apportioned as follows: Deanne Lesley Lawrence and Ricky John Lawrence: $807.00 Allister Moller and Brigette Atkinson: $1,673.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Lawrence represented the landlords.
The tenants applied for payment of the bond and the landlords cross applied for compensation for damage to the premises and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
The landlords claim that cost to remedy the following damage: • Damage to the kitchen flooring • Damage (gauge) to the architrave in a bedroom and holes in the outside Linea board cladding • Stain on the carpet by the entranceway
The tenants accept the damage to the vinyl planks (a large ‘orange’ stain) but they dispute the cost claimed to remedy the damage.
The landlords were paid by their insurer the cost to replace the flooring in the kitchen and their claim is for the excess that they were required to pay ($550.00). Ms Lawrence said that the flooring had to be replaced because the existing flooring was no longer available and therefore could not be matched.
On the other hand, the tenants believe that the damaged area could have been cut out and matching replacement planks could have been obtained. They base their belief on advice they said they had received from the Flooring Centre who told them that the flooring “could” be matched. However, I am not satisfied that they have provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that the flooring could be satisfactorily repaired by the damaged area being removed and replaced. Moreover, they did not provide sufficient evidence (such as a quote or estimate) to establish that the cost of repair would be less than the amount being claimed by the landlords.
The tenants also claim that they should not be liable for the amount claimed because they were not told of the amount of the insurance excess at the tenancy commencement (the tenancy agreement recorded that there was insurance for the premises and the amount of the excess payable would be advised). I accept that the tenants should have been advised of the amount of the excess payable however this does not release them from liability for damage caused or for the cost of its repair.
I therefore find the tenants liable for the amount claimed for the damage to the flooring.
The tenants accept that they put two screws into the outside wall of the premises (apparently to attach a house reel) but they say that the damage to the architrave was not there when they left the premises on 11 May 2024. They claim that the landlords did not tell them about the damage until 16 May and there had been other people through the premises between the end of the tenancy and 16 May who could have caused the damage.
I find on the evidence before me that it is more likely than not that the damage to the architrave was caused during the tenancy, not after as claimed by the tenants. In particular, Ms Lawrence said that she noticed the damage on the afternoon of 12 May, the day after the tenancy ended.
The tenants also claim that the landlords should have allowed them to return to the premises to remedy the damage themselves. However, a tenant’s obligation is to repair any damage for which they are liable before the tenancy ends. A landlord is not required to allow ta tenant to return after the tenancy has ended to complete any necessary repairs.
I therefore find the tenants liable for the cost to repair the external wall and the architrave. The amount claimed has been established by the production of an invoice.
However, I dismiss the claim for the cost (based on a quote) to have a stain on the carpet removed because I am not satisfied that the landlords have discharged their onus of establishing that the stain occurred during the tenancy. Ms Lawrencen points to the pre tenancy inspection report completed by property managers who were managing the tenancy at the time which records that there are no stains on the carpets. However, the inspection report is not signed by the tenants, and I accept their evidence that they did not receive a copy of it until sometime after the tenancy commenced. There is also evidence that supports that the report did not record all stains/marks to the carpets. In particular, the property manager apparently accepted that another stain that was initially claimed by the landlords was more likely than not there at the tenancy commencement. Payment of the application fee
The landlords have been mostly successful in their claims. I therefore consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
The tenants applied, in their application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
However, the tenants have been mostly unsuccessful in their defence to the claims. Their application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4952333 — net $807.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Kitchen vinyl damage - insurance excess	$550.00	Kitchen vinyl damage - insurance excess
Repair architrave and external wall	$230.00	Repair architrave and external wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$807.00
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$807.00

Order

Allister Moller and Brigette Atkinson to pay Deanne Lesley Lawrence and Ricky John Lawrence $807.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlords’ other claim (carpet damage) is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (6505543-011) immediately apportioned as follows: Deanne Lesley Lawrence and Ricky John Lawrence: $807.00 Allister Moller and Brigette Atkinson: $1,673.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Lawrence represented the landlords.
The tenants applied for payment of the bond and the landlords cross applied for compensation for damage to the premises and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

To be successful in a claim for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent: section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
The landlords claim that cost to remedy the following damage: • Damage to the kitchen flooring • Damage (gauge) to the architrave in a bedroom and holes in the outside Linea board cladding • Stain on the carpet by the entranceway
The tenants accept the damage to the vinyl planks (a large ‘orange’ stain) but they dispute the cost claimed to remedy the damage.
The landlords were paid by their insurer the cost to replace the flooring in the kitchen and their claim is for the excess that they were required to pay ($550.00). Ms Lawrence said that the flooring had to be replaced because the existing flooring was no longer available and therefore could not be matched.
On the other hand, the tenants believe that the damaged area could have been cut out and matching replacement planks could have been obtained. They base their belief on advice they said they had received from the Flooring Centre who told them that the flooring “could” be matched. However, I am not satisfied that they have provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that the flooring could be satisfactorily repaired by the damaged area being removed and replaced. Moreover, they did not provide sufficient evidence (such as a quote or estimate) to establish that the cost of repair would be less than the amount being claimed by the landlords.
The tenants also claim that they should not be liable for the amount claimed because they were not told of the amount of the insurance excess at the tenancy commencement (the tenancy agreement recorded that there was insurance for the premises and the amount of the excess payable would be advised). I accept that the tenants should have been advised of the amount of the excess payable however this does not release them from liability for damage caused or for the cost of its repair.
I therefore find the tenants liable for the amount claimed for the damage to the flooring.
The tenants accept that they put two screws into the outside wall of the premises (apparently to attach a house reel) but they say that the damage to the architrave was not there when they left the premises on 11 May 2024. They claim that the landlords did not tell them about the damage until 16 May and there had been other people through the premises between the end of the tenancy and 16 May who could have caused the damage.
I find on the evidence before me that it is more likely than not that the damage to the architrave was caused during the tenancy, not after as claimed by the tenants. In particular, Ms Lawrence said that she noticed the damage on the afternoon of 12 May, the day after the tenancy ended.
The tenants also claim that the landlords should have allowed them to return to the premises to remedy the damage themselves. However, a tenant’s obligation is to repair any damage for which they are liable before the tenancy ends. A landlord is not required to allow ta tenant to return after the tenancy has ended to complete any necessary repairs.
I therefore find the tenants liable for the cost to repair the external wall and the architrave. The amount claimed has been established by the production of an invoice.
However, I dismiss the claim for the cost (based on a quote) to have a stain on the carpet removed because I am not satisfied that the landlords have discharged their onus of establishing that the stain occurred during the tenancy. Ms Lawrencen points to the pre tenancy inspection report completed by property managers who were managing the tenancy at the time which records that there are no stains on the carpets. However, the inspection report is not signed by the tenants, and I accept their evidence that they did not receive a copy of it until sometime after the tenancy commenced. There is also evidence that supports that the report did not record all stains/marks to the carpets. In particular, the property manager apparently accepted that another stain that was initially claimed by the landlords was more likely than not there at the tenancy commencement. Payment of the application fee
The landlords have been mostly successful in their claims. I therefore consider this an appropriate case to award them payment of the Tribunal application fee. Suppression
The tenants applied, in their application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
However, the tenants have been mostly unsuccessful in their defence to the claims. Their application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952333 — Property damage at 107A Firth Street, Matamata, Matamata 3400

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952333 — Property damage at 107A Firth Street, Matamata, Matamata 3400

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions