What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5123588?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,320.00 (6390612-010) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5123588?

Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5123588?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5123588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11780551-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5123588?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,320.00 (6390612-010) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5123588?

Property Damage: $345.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5123588?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5123588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11780551-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 214, 47 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5123588 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5123588. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Damaged chattels	$345.00		Damaged chattels

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,320.00 (6390612-010) immediately apportioned as follows: Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Vulcan Properties: $345.00 Juhntaek Kong and Seo Young Park: $2,975.00 DescriptionLandlord Damaged chattels$345.00 Total award$345.00 Deducted from Bond-$345.00 Balance of bond to Tenant$2,975.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Landlord has applied for compensation, refund of part of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The following chattels were damaged at the end of the tenancy: a. Bedside cabinet – Yellow wood grain with noticeable wear: multiple small circular marks, a large coffee ring in the centre, and damage in the left-hand corner. Claimed cost: $80. b. Side table – Minor brown mark present. Claimed cost: $25. c. TV cabinet – Scratched surface, allegedly from a candle being dragged across the top. The damage is not superficial and has gone deep into the surface of the laminate. Original value stated as up to $1,500, depreciation applied over ten years, and further reduced considering its functionality, leading to claimed replacement cost: $120. d. Dining table – Black surface with circular markings and a dent. The Tenants deny responsibility, attributing the dent to a manufacturing defect, but the Landlord points to further, circular marks on the surface of the table. Claimed cost after depreciation and based on likely cost of having a contractor sand and revarnish: $250.00.

I have reviewed the Landlord’s photos of the chattels before and after the tenancy. Following discussions with the tenants, they accept that the marks reflect a lack of appropriate care and acknowledge some degree of carelessness on their part. A one-off mark, even two, on the surface of one table may have been viewed as wear and tear, but there have been several such marks, which indicates carelessness.

I approve all the above claims but adjust the amount for the dining table to $120.00. While the damage is acknowledged, I consider that the Landlord, as part of a furnishing-inclusive rental model, accepts a level of wear and tear and damage as an inherent business risk. In this case, the damage appears to be superficial and capable of being remedied by sanding and revarnishing the surface.

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.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5123588. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Damaged chattels	$345.00		Damaged chattels

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The Landlord has applied for compensation, refund of part of the bond, following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Tenancy Tribunal case 5123588 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 214, 47 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5123588 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 214, 47 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions