What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4979597?

The tribunal order states: Feng Liang must pay Anish John $277.00 immediately, being the balance of the

How much money was awarded in case 4979597?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4979597?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4979597?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10961146-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4979597?

The tribunal order states: Feng Liang must pay Anish John $277.00 immediately, being the balance of the

How much money was awarded in case 4979597?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4979597?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4979597?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10961146-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Mons Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4979597 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4979597. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and the application filing fee of	$27.00		and the application filing fee of

Order

Feng Liang must pay Anish John $277.00 immediately, being the balance of the bond of $250.00 and the application filing fee of $27.00.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via tele and video conference. A court appointed Mandarin interpreter attended after a request from the landlord. There was limited need for her assistance and the bulk of the hearing was conducted in English. Leon is the adopted English name of the landlord and it was used in correspondence as well as in this order.
The tenant applied for the return of his bond and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond.
This tenancy formed as a flat/house sharing agreement. The landlord lived at the house, along with a number of other flatmates. He moved to Australia during this tenancy. A bond of $500.00 was taken.
While jurisdiction was not challenged, I have considered the operation of this tenancy with some consideration to the formation contract and intention. The tenant describes the arrnagement as a boarding house tenancy and having heard more from both parties I consider that an accurate assessment. The landlord has committed to reviewing the other tenancy agreements at that property with this in mind.
The tenancy ended and there was a dispute between the parties regarding a mattress replacement. The tenant accepted two deductions from the bond, being $20.00 for a piece of furniture he kept and $50.00 for electricity costs.
The landlord has already returned $180.00 to the tenant but held back $250.00 for mattress replacement costs.
A strict interpretation of the bond handling would see consideration of the failure to lodge the bond, and the subsequent withholding of the balance, as an unlawful act. As discussed at the hearing, I do not consider the intent required to attract exemplary damages exists here.
The tenant accepted this and focused on the return of the balance of the bond.

Did the mattress need replacing?

The mattress was two tenancies old. That equated to three years by the time it was replaced.
The new tenant, as well as the agent for the landlord, claimed the mattress was damaged. In a written statement, the new tenant wrote: On August 10th, during my initial visit to view the room, I observed that a portion of the bed's mattress had already collapsed and was damaged. I asked Leon if it would be possible to replace the mattress with a new one, and he agreed. Subsequently, he ordered a brand-new mattress, which was promptly delivered to the property.
A mattress would be expected to last longer than three years. I needed to consider if the “collapse” of the mattress was fair wear or great.
“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.
Given the initial evidential onus is on the landlord, I considered his submissions and photographic evidence. As he was in Australia at the time he relied on the same evidence as provided.
The tenant claimed the mattress was not in good condition at the start of the tenancy, but he did not complain.
The premises was a room. It comprised a queen-sized bed, wardrobe and desk/desk chair.
I queried where guests would sit (while the amount of times were disputed, it is accepted the tenant had guests in his room a number of times) as there is no other chair or sitting furniture provided. Given the limited furnishings, I consider it reasonable to assume the mattress would have been used for extended sitting as well as the usual sleeping. Such prolonged sitting use is not anticipated in the typical design of a mattress. This, combined with tenant churn, makes an assessment of the likely economic life of a mattress in such a configuration difficult to assess. Its dual use also increases the threshold of what might be considered fair wear.
Considering the life of the mattress and the limited photographic evidence I do not consider the landlord has been able to establish the mattress replacement was more than fair wear. The new tenant requesting a replacement mattress is not in itself conclusive regarding any prior tenant careless damage. Filing fee
Because Anish John has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4979597. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
and the application filing fee of	$27.00		and the application filing fee of

Order

Feng Liang must pay Anish John $277.00 immediately, being the balance of the bond of $250.00 and the application filing fee of $27.00.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via tele and video conference. A court appointed Mandarin interpreter attended after a request from the landlord. There was limited need for her assistance and the bulk of the hearing was conducted in English. Leon is the adopted English name of the landlord and it was used in correspondence as well as in this order.
The tenant applied for the return of his bond and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond.
This tenancy formed as a flat/house sharing agreement. The landlord lived at the house, along with a number of other flatmates. He moved to Australia during this tenancy. A bond of $500.00 was taken.
While jurisdiction was not challenged, I have considered the operation of this tenancy with some consideration to the formation contract and intention. The tenant describes the arrnagement as a boarding house tenancy and having heard more from both parties I consider that an accurate assessment. The landlord has committed to reviewing the other tenancy agreements at that property with this in mind.
The tenancy ended and there was a dispute between the parties regarding a mattress replacement. The tenant accepted two deductions from the bond, being $20.00 for a piece of furniture he kept and $50.00 for electricity costs.
The landlord has already returned $180.00 to the tenant but held back $250.00 for mattress replacement costs.
A strict interpretation of the bond handling would see consideration of the failure to lodge the bond, and the subsequent withholding of the balance, as an unlawful act. As discussed at the hearing, I do not consider the intent required to attract exemplary damages exists here.
The tenant accepted this and focused on the return of the balance of the bond.

Did the mattress need replacing?

The mattress was two tenancies old. That equated to three years by the time it was replaced.
The new tenant, as well as the agent for the landlord, claimed the mattress was damaged. In a written statement, the new tenant wrote: On August 10th, during my initial visit to view the room, I observed that a portion of the bed's mattress had already collapsed and was damaged. I asked Leon if it would be possible to replace the mattress with a new one, and he agreed. Subsequently, he ordered a brand-new mattress, which was promptly delivered to the property.
A mattress would be expected to last longer than three years. I needed to consider if the “collapse” of the mattress was fair wear or great.
“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.
Given the initial evidential onus is on the landlord, I considered his submissions and photographic evidence. As he was in Australia at the time he relied on the same evidence as provided.
The tenant claimed the mattress was not in good condition at the start of the tenancy, but he did not complain.
The premises was a room. It comprised a queen-sized bed, wardrobe and desk/desk chair.
I queried where guests would sit (while the amount of times were disputed, it is accepted the tenant had guests in his room a number of times) as there is no other chair or sitting furniture provided. Given the limited furnishings, I consider it reasonable to assume the mattress would have been used for extended sitting as well as the usual sleeping. Such prolonged sitting use is not anticipated in the typical design of a mattress. This, combined with tenant churn, makes an assessment of the likely economic life of a mattress in such a configuration difficult to assess. Its dual use also increases the threshold of what might be considered fair wear.
Considering the life of the mattress and the limited photographic evidence I do not consider the landlord has been able to establish the mattress replacement was more than fair wear. The new tenant requesting a replacement mattress is not in itself conclusive regarding any prior tenant careless damage. Filing fee
Because Anish John has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4979597 — Exemplary damages at 2 Mons Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4979597 — Exemplary damages at 2 Mons Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the mattress need replacing?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the mattress need replacing?

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions