What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5036630?

The tribunal order states: Kreshma Devi Lal and Ranbeer Singh must pay Wongeoon Vast Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5036630?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036630?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11350124-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5036630?

The tribunal order states: Kreshma Devi Lal and Ranbeer Singh must pay Wongeoon Vast Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5036630?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036630?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036630?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11350124-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Wilkes Road, Wigram, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5036630 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Kreshma Devi Lal and Ranbeer Singh must pay Wongeoon Vast Limited $990.00 immediately from the bond, being rent arrears to 16 June 2024.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,080.00 (6467842-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Wongeoon Vast Limited: $990.00 Kreshma Devi Lal and Ranbeer Singh: $2,090.00

The application for the cost of a garage ceiling repair is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Wongeoon represented the landlord.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and the cost of repairing the garage ceiling which has a manhole storage area. The tenants’ application is a defence to the landlord’s application. The tenants confirmed they were not seeking any orders from the Tribunal.

I assisted the tenants to understand the landlord’s rent summary which is a correct statement of what has been paid.

The tenants accepted that there was a shortfall of $990.00 once the rent summary was reconciled with their bank statements. I have made a rent arrears order for that amount.

I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the repair cost of the garage ceiling. First, the tenants deny causing any damage. While the landlord submitted that their text messages admitted that they caused the damage, I do not read those messages as an admission.

Second, Mr Wongeoon said he did not notice any damage to the ceiling when he conducted the final inspection on 16 June 2024 (the day the tenancy ended). He only noticed the damage (and took photos of it) when he did the in-going tenant inspection on 22 June 2024. That was 6 days later.

Third, the invoice for the work simply records ‘garage ceiling painting’. I read that to mean that the entire garage ceiling was painted. Mr Wongeeon said he did not know what work was done because he had not inspected it.

The damage, even if caused by the tenants, is minor and at most would have required a patch repair.

Because I cannot determine the extent of the repair work, I do not find that the tenants are liable for the amount claimed by the landlord, and I cannot assess what a reasonable repair cost would be.

I make no award of the filing fees the parties paid. Each party has been partially successful. An award to one party would be cancelled by an award to the other.

The bond will be split between the parties - $990.00 to the landlord and $2,090.00 to the tenants.

Upon my enquiry, neither party sought a name suppression order.