What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4338186 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4338186?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4338186?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4338186?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9362514-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4338186 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4338186?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4338186?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4338186?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9362514-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

187 Rahuikiri Road, Tomarata, RD 2, Wellsford 0972 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4338186 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 3 rd August 2023.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord claimed for: a. Removal of structures - $1,500.00; b. Damaged meter board - $561.02; c. Oven replacement - $798.99; d. Bathroom reinstatement - $4,014.86; and e. Plumbing of shower - $500.00.

At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that the tenant had removed the structures installed by her and that that claim was no longer being pursued.

The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Law regarding damage claims

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B Residential Tenancies Act 19886 (“RTA”).

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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The Tribunal needs to take 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, the Tribunal into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Bathroom/meter board/plumbing compensation

The landlord’s claims for meter board, bathroom reinstatement and plumbing of shower all relate to a shower that was installed during the tenancy.

There was evidence that the shower had been installed wrongly and that costs were incurred to fix the meter board, plumbing and the bathroom.

The tenant said that the landlord Ms Sharley Ann Haddon had agreed for the vanity and the shower to be replaced during the tenancy.

The tenant said that a person by the name of Alvin Ferguson had installed the shower. Mr Ferguson was Ms Haddon’s friend’s son and Ms Haddon had been using him for general maintenance and handyman work.

The tenant and Ms Haddon gave conflicting accounts about the shower installation. Ms Haddon gave evidence via teleconference.

Ms Haddon said that she did not know anything about the shower being installed. She said that there was no reason for the shower to be changed and that she did not recall discussing the shower installation with Mr Ferguson.

Ms Haddon said that she only noticed that the shower had been changed after the tenant vacated the premises as she had only visited the tenant twice during the 2.5 years of tenancy.

Although Ms Haddon said that she would not get Mr Ferguson to install the shower for the tenant as he was not a registered plumber, she did accept that he had installed a new shower casing for her own shower in the past. That was something that the tenant had raised to support her account of the landlord engaging Mr Ferguson to install the shower for the tenant.

I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant had Mr Ferguson install the shower without the landlord’s permission or knowledge. The tenant’s evidence was that the landlord had agreed for the shower to be installed by Mr Ferguson. The landlord simply could not recall the event.

Having seen the photos from the beginning of the premises, I accept that the shower needed to be upgraded as per the tenant’s account.

Therefore, I find that the tenant is not liable for any issues that had arisen from the shower installation.

The claims for bathroom reinstatement, meter board and the shower plumbing are dismissed. Oven replacement

The landlord’s claimed that the tenant is liable for the replacement of the oven.

The tenant said that the original oven was not working properly and had left large scotch marks on the wall from the stove.

The oven was removed from its original position with the landlord’s permission. The landlord was to collect the oven when it was first removed but it was never picked up. The oven was then placed in the shed.

When the landlord raised issues about the oven, it was retrieved from the shed and placed back where it was.

I do not find that the landlord has proven that the tenant had damaged the oven.

Further to that, it must be noted that an oven has a useful lifespan of 8 years. The landlord had inherited the oven from her late husband in 2013. The oven was not new even back then.

From the photos, I find it more likely than not that the oven was more than 8 years old at the time of the tenancy. There was no value left in the oven in any case.

This claim is dismissed. Refund of the bond and filing fee

As the landlord was not successful with the application, the filing fee is not refunded.

Furthermore, as there is no amount awarded in favour of the landlord, the bond is to be refunded in full to the tenant.