What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4519649?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4519649?

Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Curtain: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Floor: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4519649?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4519649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9264728-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4519649?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4519649?

Property Damage: $150.00 awarded to tenant; Curtain: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Floor: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4519649?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4519649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9264728-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 6 Kakariki Avenue, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4519649 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4519649 — net $465.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Floor	$500.00		Repairs: Floor
Repairs: Curtain	$115.00		Repairs: Curtain
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$150.00	Unlawful entry
Total award	$615.00	$150.00
Net award	$465.00
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$465.00

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Mehak Vashist and Raghav Mittal to pay Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For Harshad Mutha And Karishma Bothara $615.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 (5765410-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For Harshad Mutha And Karishma Bothara: $615.00 Mehak Vashist and Raghav Mittal: $2,505.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant contests the landlord’s claims and has applied for exemplary damages for unlawful entry onto the premises by the landlord.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A black mark on the floor left by a pot plant. b. A broken curtain mechanism.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
No information was provided as to why an insurance claim was not made for the damaged floor. In the circumstances I award a standard insurance excess for the damage to the floor.
Mrs Vashist took issue with the amount charged for a simple curtain repair. I accept that the amount sought is high, but the landlord is not obligated to use the same handy-person to repair the curtain and the floor, as the tenant says she would have.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also claimed $129.00 for a lost office chair. The chair was recorded by way of photograph at the beginning of the tenancy but was not included on the entry inspection report. When the exit inspection was conducted on 24 February 2023, the chair was not noted. The landlord realised the chair was missing on 20 March 2023 and contacted the tenant then.
By the time the chair was noticed as missing, almost a month had passed since the end of the tenancy. For all this time the chair was the responsibility of the landlord. I do not believe it is possible to say that on the balance of probabilities the chair was not at the premises on the day the tenant vacated. If the chair had been inadvertently set aside somewhere by the packers, one month later the opportunity had been lost to track its where abouts.
For these reasons I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the chair. The tenant’s claim
Mehak Vashist and Raghav Mittal claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
At the beginning of 2023 the premises in question suffered dampness and water ingress following Auckland’s inclement weather conditions at the time. Correspondence was exchanged between the landlord and Mrs Vashist regarding the extent of the problem and possible solutions to the problem. On 4 February 2023, Mrs Vashist sent a text to the landlord advising that her family was no longer living at the premises and she was “leaving it for you (the landlord) to sort out”.
On 7 February 2023 the landlord requested more information about the dampness and water ingress. The landlord received no reply. On 8 February 2023 the landlord texted Mrs Vashist asking if he could “pop around” to the property to investigate the dampness and water ingress. Two hours later Ms Vashist responded apologising for not responding sooner and asking if the landlord had got or done what he wanted. When Mrs Vashist next returned to the property, she discovered that a window had been left open by the landlord. The landlord explained that he had opened the window and left it open, to air the property.
The landlord failed to provide the requisite notice to enter the premises. There was an understanding and an agreement between the landlord and Mrs Vashist at the time, that the landlord would be addressing the ongoing problem at the property of dampness. I am not convinced this went so far as to be consent for the landlord to come and go as he pleased over any period of time..
The tenant was no longer living there although she was definitely in occupation and possession of the premises. None of the communication between the landlord and tenant, and vice versa, negates the ongoing requirement on the landlord to provide express notice on each occasion they wanted to enter the property. For this reason, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act, albeit one at the lower end of the scale in terms of seriousness.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s intention was in the interests of addressing the issue of dampness at the property. However, he did not give sufficient consideration to the tenant’s right to privacy in their home. Mrs Vashist said she had been at the premises earlier in the day and she gave evidence that from time to time she had found the landlord’s behaviour aggressive. I consider this elevates the seriousness of the breach of Mrs Vashist’s right to privacy.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4519649 — net $465.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Floor	$500.00		Repairs: Floor
Repairs: Curtain	$115.00		Repairs: Curtain
Exemplary damages: Unlawful entry		$150.00	Unlawful entry
Total award	$615.00	$150.00
Net award	$465.00
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$465.00

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Mehak Vashist and Raghav Mittal to pay Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For Harshad Mutha And Karishma Bothara $615.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 (5765410-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited As Agent For Harshad Mutha And Karishma Bothara: $615.00 Mehak Vashist and Raghav Mittal: $2,505.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant contests the landlord’s claims and has applied for exemplary damages for unlawful entry onto the premises by the landlord.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. A black mark on the floor left by a pot plant. b. A broken curtain mechanism.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
No information was provided as to why an insurance claim was not made for the damaged floor. In the circumstances I award a standard insurance excess for the damage to the floor.
Mrs Vashist took issue with the amount charged for a simple curtain repair. I accept that the amount sought is high, but the landlord is not obligated to use the same handy-person to repair the curtain and the floor, as the tenant says she would have.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also claimed $129.00 for a lost office chair. The chair was recorded by way of photograph at the beginning of the tenancy but was not included on the entry inspection report. When the exit inspection was conducted on 24 February 2023, the chair was not noted. The landlord realised the chair was missing on 20 March 2023 and contacted the tenant then.
By the time the chair was noticed as missing, almost a month had passed since the end of the tenancy. For all this time the chair was the responsibility of the landlord. I do not believe it is possible to say that on the balance of probabilities the chair was not at the premises on the day the tenant vacated. If the chair had been inadvertently set aside somewhere by the packers, one month later the opportunity had been lost to track its where abouts.
For these reasons I dismiss the landlord’s claim for the chair. The tenant’s claim
Mehak Vashist and Raghav Mittal claim the landlord has entered the premises without consent or notice.
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
At the beginning of 2023 the premises in question suffered dampness and water ingress following Auckland’s inclement weather conditions at the time. Correspondence was exchanged between the landlord and Mrs Vashist regarding the extent of the problem and possible solutions to the problem. On 4 February 2023, Mrs Vashist sent a text to the landlord advising that her family was no longer living at the premises and she was “leaving it for you (the landlord) to sort out”.
On 7 February 2023 the landlord requested more information about the dampness and water ingress. The landlord received no reply. On 8 February 2023 the landlord texted Mrs Vashist asking if he could “pop around” to the property to investigate the dampness and water ingress. Two hours later Ms Vashist responded apologising for not responding sooner and asking if the landlord had got or done what he wanted. When Mrs Vashist next returned to the property, she discovered that a window had been left open by the landlord. The landlord explained that he had opened the window and left it open, to air the property.
The landlord failed to provide the requisite notice to enter the premises. There was an understanding and an agreement between the landlord and Mrs Vashist at the time, that the landlord would be addressing the ongoing problem at the property of dampness. I am not convinced this went so far as to be consent for the landlord to come and go as he pleased over any period of time..
The tenant was no longer living there although she was definitely in occupation and possession of the premises. None of the communication between the landlord and tenant, and vice versa, negates the ongoing requirement on the landlord to provide express notice on each occasion they wanted to enter the property. For this reason, I find the landlord committed an unlawful act, albeit one at the lower end of the scale in terms of seriousness.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord’s intention was in the interests of addressing the issue of dampness at the property. However, he did not give sufficient consideration to the tenant’s right to privacy in their home. Mrs Vashist said she had been at the premises earlier in the day and she gave evidence that from time to time she had found the landlord’s behaviour aggressive. I consider this elevates the seriousness of the breach of Mrs Vashist’s right to privacy.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4519649 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4, 6 Kakariki Avenue, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4519649 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4, 6 Kakariki Avenue, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions