What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4550753 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 4550753?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; 20 Holes In Walls: $1,035.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door Frame/Door: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Broken Wardrobe Door: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Extensive wall markings throughout -…: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord; Main Door: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreci…: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Three mattresse…: $450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4550753?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4550753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9332463-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4550753 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 4550753?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; 20 Holes In Walls: $1,035.00 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door Frame/Door: $1,725.00 awarded to landlord; Broken Wardrobe Door: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Extensive wall markings throughout -…: $2,300.00 awarded to landlord; Main Door: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreci…: $345.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Three mattresse…: $450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4550753?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4550753?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9332463-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 720, 21 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland 1010, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4550753 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4550753 — net $4,965.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: Three mattresses replaced (depreciated	$450.00	Replace furnishings: Three mattresses replaced (depreciated
Repairs: 20 holes in walls	$1,035.00	Repairs: 20 holes in walls
Repairs: Bedroom door frame/door	$1,725.00	Repairs: Bedroom door frame/door
Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreciated	$345.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreciated
Repairs: Extensive wall markings throughout - repainting	$2,300.00	Repairs: Extensive wall markings throughout - repainting
Repairs: Broken wardrobe door	$345.00	Repairs: Broken wardrobe door
Repairs: Main door	$345.00	Repairs: Main door
Net award	$4,965.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,965.44

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.

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

The tenancy commenced 29 April 2022 and ended 30 March 2023.

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.

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: a. Three mattresses replaced (depreciated). All three mattresses supplied at the start of the tenancy were damaged and had to be replaced. They were not new at the start of the tenancy and a significant depreciation applied, based on the approximate age. The invoice was for $575 for each. I have awarded $150.00 per mattress to reflect the actual value at the time. b. 20 holes in walls. The photos provided were of a very badly damaged premises. There were significant holes of various sizes throughout and the claim for repairs at $1,035.00 appears very reasonable and it is awarded in full. The damage is considered intentional. A second claim for $345.00 for wall damage is not allowed. Based on the photos it appears reasonable for that cost to be reflected in the amount awarded here. c. Bedroom door frame/door. This was so badly damaged the door framing had been pushed out. The repairs involved the door, framing and surrounding walls and the $1,725.00 claimed is awarded in full. The damage is considered intentional. d. Carpet (depreciated). The carpet was badly stained and replaced. It was of some age, estimated at ten years by the landlord. It appears to had some practical life remaining bar the staining and I award 10% of the $3,450.00 claimed for carpet replacement – that being $345.00. e. Extensive wall markings throughout. The walls were heavily tagged or subjected to multiple areas of graffiti. The landlord had to repaint all of the walls at a cost of $2,300. The walls had been repainted more recently than the carpet and from what can be seen of the undamaged walls, no depreciation should be applied. The full cost is awarded. The damage is considered intentional. f. Broken wardrobe door. This was badly damaged with a big hole obvious. It was replaced at a cost of $345.00 and this cost is awarded in full. The damage is considered intentional. g. Main door. The door jamb and frame were broken by what appears to have been a forced entry. The costs of repair was $345.00 and this is awarded in full. The damage is considered intentional.

The damage was extensive, mostly intentional and not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved by invoices and photographs.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation where appropriate. 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 the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

The bond is already with the landlord after it was released. This is applied against the debt in this order. Application filing fee

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord requested name suppression. As it has been wholly successful with the proceedings, suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4550753 — net $4,965.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Replace furnishings: Three mattresses replaced (depreciated	$450.00	Replace furnishings: Three mattresses replaced (depreciated
Repairs: 20 holes in walls	$1,035.00	Repairs: 20 holes in walls
Repairs: Bedroom door frame/door	$1,725.00	Repairs: Bedroom door frame/door
Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreciated	$345.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet (depreciated
Repairs: Extensive wall markings throughout - repainting	$2,300.00	Repairs: Extensive wall markings throughout - repainting
Repairs: Broken wardrobe door	$345.00	Repairs: Broken wardrobe door
Repairs: Main door	$345.00	Repairs: Main door
Net award	$4,965.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,965.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Paul Sawyer must pay [The landlord/s] $4,965.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy commenced 29 April 2022 and ended 30 March 2023.

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.
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: a. Three mattresses replaced (depreciated). All three mattresses supplied at the start of the tenancy were damaged and had to be replaced. They were not new at the start of the tenancy and a significant depreciation applied, based on the approximate age. The invoice was for $575 for each. I have awarded $150.00 per mattress to reflect the actual value at the time. b. 20 holes in walls. The photos provided were of a very badly damaged premises. There were significant holes of various sizes throughout and the claim for repairs at $1,035.00 appears very reasonable and it is awarded in full. The damage is considered intentional. A second claim for $345.00 for wall damage is not allowed. Based on the photos it appears reasonable for that cost to be reflected in the amount awarded here. c. Bedroom door frame/door. This was so badly damaged the door framing had been pushed out. The repairs involved the door, framing and surrounding walls and the $1,725.00 claimed is awarded in full. The damage is considered intentional. d. Carpet (depreciated). The carpet was badly stained and replaced. It was of some age, estimated at ten years by the landlord. It appears to had some practical life remaining bar the staining and I award 10% of the $3,450.00 claimed for carpet replacement – that being $345.00. e. Extensive wall markings throughout. The walls were heavily tagged or subjected to multiple areas of graffiti. The landlord had to repaint all of the walls at a cost of $2,300. The walls had been repainted more recently than the carpet and from what can be seen of the undamaged walls, no depreciation should be applied. The full cost is awarded. The damage is considered intentional. f. Broken wardrobe door. This was badly damaged with a big hole obvious. It was replaced at a cost of $345.00 and this cost is awarded in full. The damage is considered intentional. g. Main door. The door jamb and frame were broken by what appears to have been a forced entry. The costs of repair was $345.00 and this is awarded in full. The damage is considered intentional.
The damage was extensive, mostly intentional and not fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved by invoices and photographs.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation where appropriate. 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 the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The bond is already with the landlord after it was released. This is applied against the debt in this order. Application filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord requested name suppression. As it has been wholly successful with the proceedings, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4550753 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 720, 21 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland 1010,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4550753 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 720, 21 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland 1010,

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