What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4456009?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4456009?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,055.00 awarded to landlord; Front Door: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Vanity: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $999.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4456009?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4456009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9484063-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4456009?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4456009?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,055.00 awarded to landlord; Front Door: $690.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Curtains: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Vanity: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $999.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4456009?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4456009?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9484063-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3B Sanders Avenue, Marewa, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4456009 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4456009 — net $6,664.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs: Replace damaged window tint	$999.00	Window repairs: Replace damaged window tint
Carpet replacement	$3,055.00	Carpet replacement
Repairs: garage door	$1,200.00	Repairs: garage door
Repairs: front door	$690.00	Repairs: front door
Replace curtains	$400.00	Replace curtains
Replace vanity	$300.00	Replace vanity
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,664.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,664.44

Only the applicant landlords attended the hearing.

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related 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 (or market 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: the carpets were extensively damaged throughout the property. The photographs confirm the extensive damage including burns, stains and dog urine. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan. As the carpets were around 10 or 11 years old the amount ordered is to lift the old carpet and discard it and replace the underlay only. In other wards the actual carpet cost is not included in the award made and the amount ordered is less than the 4 excesses of $1,200 per room that the landlord has paid. None of the costs awarded would have been required except for the extensive damage.

I have awarded an insurance excess to replace the extensively damaged garage door. While the landlord was hopeful it could be repaired the builder said it could not as the scratches were too deep. The excess is less than the replacement cost and is considered fair compensation.

The damage to the front door and the tint of the double-glazed windows, is confirmed by the photographs and the cost of repairing both items by the builder’s invoice.

The tenant removed one of the lounge curtains as it was stained with dog urine. The amount requested is considered reasonable compensation to replace the curtains.

The landlord has not yet attended to replacing the vanity in the bathroom, which was extensively damaged, probably while the tenant was trying to remove dye that she had dropped onto it. The vanity was around 10 years old, but in good condition. I have depreciated the replacement cost substantially to reflect this but to acknowledge that the tenant ought to contribute towards the replacement cost.

I have declined to award compensation for replacement of the shower hinges as no evidence was provided to support this claim. The balance of the claims were withdrawn at the hearing.

Because Steven and Rachel Yates have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The order is to be published without suppression. The public interest requires that the tenants name is published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4456009 — net $6,664.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs: Replace damaged window tint	$999.00	Window repairs: Replace damaged window tint
Carpet replacement	$3,055.00	Carpet replacement
Repairs: garage door	$1,200.00	Repairs: garage door
Repairs: front door	$690.00	Repairs: front door
Replace curtains	$400.00	Replace curtains
Replace vanity	$300.00	Replace vanity
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,664.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,664.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Tracy Jane Curtis must pay Steven and Rachel Yates $6,664.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlords attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

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 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 (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related 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 (or market 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: the carpets were extensively damaged throughout the property. The photographs confirm the extensive damage including burns, stains and dog urine. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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 carpet at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan. As the carpets were around 10 or 11 years old the amount ordered is to lift the old carpet and discard it and replace the underlay only. In other wards the actual carpet cost is not included in the award made and the amount ordered is less than the 4 excesses of $1,200 per room that the landlord has paid. None of the costs awarded would have been required except for the extensive damage.
I have awarded an insurance excess to replace the extensively damaged garage door. While the landlord was hopeful it could be repaired the builder said it could not as the scratches were too deep. The excess is less than the replacement cost and is considered fair compensation.
The damage to the front door and the tint of the double-glazed windows, is confirmed by the photographs and the cost of repairing both items by the builder’s invoice.
The tenant removed one of the lounge curtains as it was stained with dog urine. The amount requested is considered reasonable compensation to replace the curtains.
The landlord has not yet attended to replacing the vanity in the bathroom, which was extensively damaged, probably while the tenant was trying to remove dye that she had dropped onto it. The vanity was around 10 years old, but in good condition. I have depreciated the replacement cost substantially to reflect this but to acknowledge that the tenant ought to contribute towards the replacement cost.
I have declined to award compensation for replacement of the shower hinges as no evidence was provided to support this claim. The balance of the claims were withdrawn at the hearing.
Because Steven and Rachel Yates have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The order is to be published without suppression. The public interest requires that the tenants name is published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4456009 — Property damage at 3B Sanders Avenue, Marewa, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4456009 — Property damage at 3B Sanders Avenue, Marewa, Napier 4110

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions