What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5385082?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5385082?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5385082?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5385082?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13083330-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5385082?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5385082?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5385082?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5385082?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13083330-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Taumata Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5385082 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by videoconference.
Both tenants attended the hearing. However, Mr Harris was the person who addressed me.
Mr Burke was the property manager from Property Scouts at the relevant time. Introduction and background
This is an application by the tenants seeking repayment of part of the rental bond deducted at the conclusion of their tenancy.
The total bond paid at the commencement of the tenancy was $4,600. Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord claimed $966 from the bond for repairs. That amount comprised $621 for repairs to the kitchen floor in the area near the fridge and $345 for other repair works, including filling and painting screw holes to barge boards and window frames.
The parties signed the bond refund form. As a result, the Bond Centre released $966 to the landlord and $3,634 to the tenants. The bond has therefore been fully disbursed and there is no money currently held by the Bond Centre.
The works carried out at the property are not in dispute. The tenants accept that there was a hole in the kitchen floor near the fridge and that there were screw holes to the barge boards and window frames that required repair. The sole issue in dispute is whether the total cost of $966 charged for those repairs was excessive. Nature of the tenants’ claim
Mr Harris submitted that the repair work involved replacing a single laminate floorboard near the fridge and filling and painting a small number of screw holes, being six holes to the barge boards and two holes to window frames. He contended that the total cost claimed by the landlord was far higher than what was reasonable for that work.
Mr Harris gave evidence that he is a builder and that, in his opinion, the work could have been completed for a significantly lower amount. He also referred to discussions with other people, including his son, who is also a builder, and said the work could have been done cheaply and quickly. Mr Harris further argued that the tenants should have been given an opportunity to carry out the repairs themselves and that they should have been issued with a 14-day notice to remedy.
Mr Harris acknowledged that the tenants signed the bond refund form but said they did so because they urgently needed the bond money to secure another tenancy and had no practical alternative at the time. Burden of proof and applicable principles
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The burden of proof in this matter rests with the tenants. To succeed in their claim, they must satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that the amount deducted from the bond for repairs was excessive or unreasonable.
It is not sufficient for the tenants to simply assert that the cost was too high or that the work could have been done more cheaply. The Tribunal requires objective and persuasive evidence to establish that the landlord’s costs exceeded what was reasonably incurred in the circumstances.
I also note that this is not a case where the landlord is seeking further compensation. The landlord’s position is that the agreed bond deduction has already been finalised, and the tenants are seeking to undo or revisit that agreement. Evidence concerning the repair costs
The landlord provided evidence that the kitchen floor repair was carried out by Maxwell Construction Ltd at a cost of $621. The remaining works, including repairs to barge boards and window frames, were carried out at a cost of $345. The total deduction of $966 reflects those amounts.
The tenants did not provide any written quotes, invoices, or reports from an independent contractor or expert to demonstrate that the work could have been carried out for less. Mr Harris relied primarily on his own experience as a builder and on informal discussions with people known to him.
While I accept that Mr Harris may have genuine views about the cost of the work, his evidence is not independent. He is a party to the dispute and has a direct financial interest in the outcome. In the absence of corroborating evidence from an independent expert, I am unable to give significant weight to his opinion that the work should have cost substantially less.
I also note that the repairs were carried out after the tenancy had ended. At that point, the landlord was entitled to engage contractors of their choosing, provided the costs incurred were reasonable. I do not assess whether the cheapest possible option was taken, but whether the costs claimed were reasonably incurred. Effect of the signed bond refund form
A central issue in this matter is that both tenants signed the bond refund form. At the time they did so, they were aware that $966 was being deducted from the bond for repairs. The form was signed by consent and submitted to the Bond Centre, which then released the funds accordingly.
Mr Harris explained that the tenants signed the form because they needed access to the bond money urgently. While I accept that the tenants were under financial pressure, that does not of itself invalidate their consent. There is no evidence before me of duress, coercion, misrepresentation, or any other factor that would render the agreement ineffective.
Importantly, the tenants had the option of disputing the proposed bond deduction before signing the refund form. They could have filed an application with the Tribunal at that time, seeking a determination of the appropriate amount to be deducted. They did not do so. Instead, they chose to sign the form and agree to the distribution of the bond.
An explanation of what “Refund details” means states: Refund details This section shows how you have agreed the bond money will be paid out to the tenant, landlord or both. The money will come from the general bond, the pet bond, or both. If the landlord wishes to claim some or all of the bond money, they must indicate the reason why using the tick-boxes. If there is any amount that you cannot agree on, this should be written in ‘Amount on hold’. This amount will not be paid out until agreement is reached or until a mediated/Tenancy Tribunal order is made. (emphasis mine)
In these circumstances, there is no principled basis for me to revisit or undo what was agreed between the parties. The bond refund form represents a concluded agreement, and the Tribunal should be slow to interfere with such agreements absent compelling reasons. Opportunity to remedy and the 14-day notice argument
The tenants argued that they should have been given a 14-day notice to remedy the issues under section 56 of the Act and allowed to carry out the repairs themselves. I do not accept this submission.
The tenancy had ended once the tenants vacated the premises and returned possession to the landlord. After the tenancy has ended, the landlord is not obliged to allow former tenants to re-enter the property to carry out repairs. While some landlords may choose to do so, that is a matter of discretion rather than legal obligation.
The provisions relating to notices to remedy apply during the tenancy. They do not require a landlord to delay repairs or permit former tenants to return to the premises after possession has reverted to the landlord. Accordingly, the tenants’ reliance on a 14-day notice to remedy is misplaced, and that argument is rejected. Other matters raised at the hearing
A number of issues were raised regarding dates, timelines, communications, and prior Tribunal proceedings. In my view, these matters do not affect the outcome of this application. The key question is whether the repair costs deducted from the bond were excessive and whether there is any basis to disturb the agreement reached by the parties.
I also note that the tenants made a complaint to the franchisor of the property management company, Mr Ryan Weir, which was investigated and ultimately dismissed. Conclusion
The tenants have not discharged the burden of proof. They have failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the repair costs of $966 were excessive. They have also failed to provide independent evidence to support their assertions as to what the repairs should have cost.
The tenants signed the bond refund form with knowledge of the deduction and consented to the release of the bond on that basis. Having done so, they cannot now seek to re-open that agreement simply because they later formed the view that the costs were too high.
For these reasons, and having considered all of the evidence and submissions made at the hearing, I am not satisfied that the tenants’ claim has been made out.
The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5385082 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Taumata Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5385082 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Taumata Road, Sandringham, Auckland 1025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions