What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4407294 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 4407294?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4407294?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4407294?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9176375-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4407294 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 4407294?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4407294?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4407294?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9176375-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 10, 15 Sunhill Road, Sunnyvale, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4407294 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4407294 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess - stove top	$500.00	Insurance excess - stove top
Net award	$500.00
Bond	$2,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $500.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $500.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,940.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended in person. The tenants now reside in Melbourne. The tenant, [Tenant 1] attended by telephone and represented both she and [Tenant 2].
The tenant applied for refund of the bond. The landlord applied for compensation due to damage to the benchtop.
After the first hearing, but before the second hearing, the landlord applied for compensation due to damage to the cooktop and amended the amount claimed for the damage to the benchtop.
This matter was initially heard on 28 April 2023. At that hearing it became evident that further evidence was required to assist the Tribunal in reaching a decision. The evidence to be provided for the second hearing was: (a) Updated communication from the insurance company or broker concerning the insurance claim; (b) Correspondence concerning the second opinion sought by the landlord in April 2022; and (c) Any second opinion in relation to the damage as obtained by the tenants. Further evidence
No updated communication from the insurance company has been submitted. The tenant had emailed the insurance company on 28 April 2023 with details of their position on the damage.
At the hearing the landlord advised that she hasn’t made an insurance claim and instead she had been enquiring whether a claim was possible. However, I refer to the email from the insurance broker dated 16 August 2022 which states that she has lodged the claim and the insurance company required further information/documentation. At the hearing the landlord confirmed that neither the insurance broker nor the insurance company have contacted her since the tenant had provided details of the damage.
I note that the email from the insurance broker dated 2 September 2022 asks whether the landlord wants to await the tenant’s comments before [Insurance company] proceed with their final decision. At that time the tenants did not communicate with the insurance broker but did so on 28 April 2023. The landlord’s response is not known.
In relation to the second opinion from April 2022 the landlord could not identify who attended and therefore whether a second opinion existed.
The tenant thought that this opinion was in relation to a visit carried out on 15 February 2022.
In relation to the second opinion which the tenant could provide, this also was not submitted. The reason for this was that access for the second opinion could only be accommodated approximately one week before the hearing. In the meantime, the landlord had carried out a repair to the benchtop which meant that the state of the benchtop had changed, and a second opinion would not be relevant. Benchtop claim
Initially the landlord claimed for replacement of the benchtop and related costs amounting to $7,330.18. This claim was amended after the landlord employed a company to repair the damage. The new amount claimed is $143.75.
The first question to consider is whether the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 16 October 2021 and ended on 30 May 2022. The premises are a new build. The documentation states that the handover date was 28 September 2021. There is a gap of 17 days between handover date and the start of the tenancy.
The tenants deny causing the damage to the benchtop. They state that they did not spill anything, and the damage was not caused by their cleaning methods.
Soon after the tenancy began the tenants advised the landlord that they noticed the damage to the benchtop. That email was sent on 30 October 2021.
An end of tenancy inspection was carried out on 31 May 2022. The inspection report notes at page 3 in relation to sinks/benches, “blanched area still present to right of sink – warranty issue”.
At an earlier inspection on 31 January 2022 the inspection report states, “Tenants pointed out a flaw in the benchtop that they say has been there since they moved in. It looks like a lack of pigment. This has been mentioned to the builder as a matter under warranty. Photographed at the inspection.”
In a Maintenance Request Form dated 28 February 2022 for [Building company], the company who constructed the premises, it notes, “blanched patches in the benchtop stone. Looks as if it was not manufactured properly where pigment is missing.”
[Benchtop company] provided an opinion that the damage had been done since the bench had been installed and they could not remedy it. On 6 July 2022 the email from [Benchtop company] states that “the likely cause for these markings are from neglect and excessive rubbing in the same spot which has caused the marking on the bench top”.
In an email dated 20 June 2023 from [Benchtop company] it states that a second opinion was sought from the stone suppliers, [Supplier]. This may be the second opinion that the landlord could not recall.
Apparently, [Supplier] also determined that the damage had been done post install and they were unable to remedy the bench. I note that it is recorded that neither [Benchtop company] nor [Supplier] have any idea who is responsible for the damage post install or how the damage occurred.
Around May 2023 the landlord employed [Stone company], a company specialising in stone and tile care. That company carried out repairs to the benchtop. While the landlord says that the repairs have not returned the bench to its original condition she now seeks $143.75 to cover the cost of those repairs.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that the damage occurred during the tenancy. There are several reasons why I have reached this view. Firstly, there was a period before the tenants moved in when the damage could have occurred. That damage could have been caused by other tradespeople or the cleaners after the build completion.
Alternatively, the damage could have been present when the bench was installed. While the builder and the company who installed and supplied the benchtop state that the damage was not present when installed the only way to be sure of this would be to have clear photographs from the same angle, with the same lighting as the later photographs showing the damage.
The landlord had submitted photographs of the benchtop dated 7 October 2021 from before the tenancy commenced and a photograph dated 31 January 2022 following an inspection. While the photographs are of the same area the lighting, reflections and angle of the photographs are different.
I also note that prior to the relationship between the parties deteriorating the landlord was of the view that the damage was due to a defect and would be covered by warranty. This is also a possibility. I note that there was no definitive evidence produced to establish the cause of the damage.
As I have reached the view that there is no clear evidence that the damage was caused during the tenancy and therefore by the tenants, the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Stove top claim
The landlord’s recent claim for compensation relates to damage to the cooktop which occurred in February 2022. At the time the tenants admitted to careless damage and the landlord submitted an insurance claim which was accepted.
The landlord had advised the tenants that she would pay for the insurance excess of $500.00 as relations between the parties were much better than they currently are. Also, the landlord says that she did not know that the tenants could be liable for the insurance excess following damage caused.
The tenant acknowledges that they caused the damage and says that they offered to pay the insurance excess in a phone call to the landlord. The tenant no longer considers that they should be liable for the insurance excess.
The issue is whether the tenants are liable for the damage to the cooktop and if so, whether they should still be liable for the insurance excess.
It is clear and accepted that the tenants were responsible for the damage.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Notwithstanding that the landlord had earlier offered to cover the cost of the insurance excess the law states that the tenant is liable. The amount of the insurance excess is ordered. Filing fee and suppression
The tenant has had success with the application to refund the bond. The landlord was not successful with the application for compensation in relation to the benchtop but has had success with the second application in relation to the cooktop.
As both parties have been successful with one application each, no award is made in relation to reimbursement of the filing fee.
As both have had some success an order is made suppressing the names and identifying details of the parties.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4407294 — net $500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess - stove top	$500.00	Insurance excess - stove top
Net award	$500.00
Bond	$2,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $500.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $500.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,940.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended in person. The tenants now reside in Melbourne. The tenant, [Tenant 1] attended by telephone and represented both she and [Tenant 2].
The tenant applied for refund of the bond. The landlord applied for compensation due to damage to the benchtop.
After the first hearing, but before the second hearing, the landlord applied for compensation due to damage to the cooktop and amended the amount claimed for the damage to the benchtop.
This matter was initially heard on 28 April 2023. At that hearing it became evident that further evidence was required to assist the Tribunal in reaching a decision. The evidence to be provided for the second hearing was: (a) Updated communication from the insurance company or broker concerning the insurance claim; (b) Correspondence concerning the second opinion sought by the landlord in April 2022; and (c) Any second opinion in relation to the damage as obtained by the tenants. Further evidence
No updated communication from the insurance company has been submitted. The tenant had emailed the insurance company on 28 April 2023 with details of their position on the damage.
At the hearing the landlord advised that she hasn’t made an insurance claim and instead she had been enquiring whether a claim was possible. However, I refer to the email from the insurance broker dated 16 August 2022 which states that she has lodged the claim and the insurance company required further information/documentation. At the hearing the landlord confirmed that neither the insurance broker nor the insurance company have contacted her since the tenant had provided details of the damage.
I note that the email from the insurance broker dated 2 September 2022 asks whether the landlord wants to await the tenant’s comments before [Insurance company] proceed with their final decision. At that time the tenants did not communicate with the insurance broker but did so on 28 April 2023. The landlord’s response is not known.
In relation to the second opinion from April 2022 the landlord could not identify who attended and therefore whether a second opinion existed.
The tenant thought that this opinion was in relation to a visit carried out on 15 February 2022.
In relation to the second opinion which the tenant could provide, this also was not submitted. The reason for this was that access for the second opinion could only be accommodated approximately one week before the hearing. In the meantime, the landlord had carried out a repair to the benchtop which meant that the state of the benchtop had changed, and a second opinion would not be relevant. Benchtop claim
Initially the landlord claimed for replacement of the benchtop and related costs amounting to $7,330.18. This claim was amended after the landlord employed a company to repair the damage. The new amount claimed is $143.75.
The first question to consider is whether the damage occurred during the tenancy.
The tenancy began on 16 October 2021 and ended on 30 May 2022. The premises are a new build. The documentation states that the handover date was 28 September 2021. There is a gap of 17 days between handover date and the start of the tenancy.
The tenants deny causing the damage to the benchtop. They state that they did not spill anything, and the damage was not caused by their cleaning methods.
Soon after the tenancy began the tenants advised the landlord that they noticed the damage to the benchtop. That email was sent on 30 October 2021.
An end of tenancy inspection was carried out on 31 May 2022. The inspection report notes at page 3 in relation to sinks/benches, “blanched area still present to right of sink – warranty issue”.
At an earlier inspection on 31 January 2022 the inspection report states, “Tenants pointed out a flaw in the benchtop that they say has been there since they moved in. It looks like a lack of pigment. This has been mentioned to the builder as a matter under warranty. Photographed at the inspection.”
In a Maintenance Request Form dated 28 February 2022 for [Building company], the company who constructed the premises, it notes, “blanched patches in the benchtop stone. Looks as if it was not manufactured properly where pigment is missing.”
[Benchtop company] provided an opinion that the damage had been done since the bench had been installed and they could not remedy it. On 6 July 2022 the email from [Benchtop company] states that “the likely cause for these markings are from neglect and excessive rubbing in the same spot which has caused the marking on the bench top”.
In an email dated 20 June 2023 from [Benchtop company] it states that a second opinion was sought from the stone suppliers, [Supplier]. This may be the second opinion that the landlord could not recall.
Apparently, [Supplier] also determined that the damage had been done post install and they were unable to remedy the bench. I note that it is recorded that neither [Benchtop company] nor [Supplier] have any idea who is responsible for the damage post install or how the damage occurred.
Around May 2023 the landlord employed [Stone company], a company specialising in stone and tile care. That company carried out repairs to the benchtop. While the landlord says that the repairs have not returned the bench to its original condition she now seeks $143.75 to cover the cost of those repairs.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that the damage occurred during the tenancy. There are several reasons why I have reached this view. Firstly, there was a period before the tenants moved in when the damage could have occurred. That damage could have been caused by other tradespeople or the cleaners after the build completion.
Alternatively, the damage could have been present when the bench was installed. While the builder and the company who installed and supplied the benchtop state that the damage was not present when installed the only way to be sure of this would be to have clear photographs from the same angle, with the same lighting as the later photographs showing the damage.
The landlord had submitted photographs of the benchtop dated 7 October 2021 from before the tenancy commenced and a photograph dated 31 January 2022 following an inspection. While the photographs are of the same area the lighting, reflections and angle of the photographs are different.
I also note that prior to the relationship between the parties deteriorating the landlord was of the view that the damage was due to a defect and would be covered by warranty. This is also a possibility. I note that there was no definitive evidence produced to establish the cause of the damage.
As I have reached the view that there is no clear evidence that the damage was caused during the tenancy and therefore by the tenants, the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Stove top claim
The landlord’s recent claim for compensation relates to damage to the cooktop which occurred in February 2022. At the time the tenants admitted to careless damage and the landlord submitted an insurance claim which was accepted.
The landlord had advised the tenants that she would pay for the insurance excess of $500.00 as relations between the parties were much better than they currently are. Also, the landlord says that she did not know that the tenants could be liable for the insurance excess following damage caused.
The tenant acknowledges that they caused the damage and says that they offered to pay the insurance excess in a phone call to the landlord. The tenant no longer considers that they should be liable for the insurance excess.
The issue is whether the tenants are liable for the damage to the cooktop and if so, whether they should still be liable for the insurance excess.
It is clear and accepted that the tenants were responsible for the damage.
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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Notwithstanding that the landlord had earlier offered to cover the cost of the insurance excess the law states that the tenant is liable. The amount of the insurance excess is ordered. Filing fee and suppression
The tenant has had success with the application to refund the bond. The landlord was not successful with the application for compensation in relation to the benchtop but has had success with the second application in relation to the cooktop.
As both parties have been successful with one application each, no award is made in relation to reimbursement of the filing fee.
As both have had some success an order is made suppressing the names and identifying details of the parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4407294 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 10, 15 Sunhill Road, Sunnyvale, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4407294 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 10, 15 Sunhill Road, Sunnyvale, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions