What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4554276?

The tribunal order states: Katherine Mary Thompson and Mark Thompson to pay Michael Alan Collins

How much money was awarded in case 4554276?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4554276?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4554276?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9233502-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4554276?

The tribunal order states: Katherine Mary Thompson and Mark Thompson to pay Michael Alan Collins

How much money was awarded in case 4554276?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $375.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4554276?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4554276?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9233502-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11 McGrath Drive, Lincoln 7608 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4554276 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4554276 — net $2,305.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Kitchen drawer front damage	$200.00	Kitchen drawer front damage
Carpet damage	$80.00	Carpet damage
Wall damage	$375.00	Wall damage
Curtain damage	$1,650.00	Curtain damage
Net award	$2,305.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,305.00

Order

Katherine Mary Thompson and Mark Thompson to pay Michael Alan Collins and Raewyn Louise Collins $2,305.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6377461-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Michael Collins and Raewyn Collins: $2,305.00 Katherine Thompson and Mark Thompson: $95.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mrs Thompson represented the tenants.
The tenants applied for payment of the bond and the landlords cross applied for costs to repair damage to the premises following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants 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, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies At 1986 (the Act).
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. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent: section 49B(3) of the Act. 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: section 49B(1) of the Act.
The landlords have insurance with an excess of $550.00 for each claim.
The landlords claim costs to remedy the following damage: • Cuts/chips to two kitchen drawer fronts and chipping on the side of the kitchen bench: $1,587.17 • Hole in the carpet in the master bedroom: $888.00 • Damage to the wall in a bedroom and in the dining room: $750.00 • Damage to the curtains (rips) in two bedrooms and the lounge: $3,907.99 Kitchen drawer fronts and bench
Mrs Thompson accepts the claim for damage to one of the tops of the drawers in the kitchen which she said was caused by their 10 year old son trying to close the drawer with a knife stuck in it. However, she denies any knowledge of the damage to another drawer front, and she said that the bench was chipped in the area claimed at the tenancy commencement.
I dismiss the claim for the damage to the second drawer. The photographs of the damage show very small minor chips/dents on the top edge of the drawer. I consider this damage to be more likely than not as a result of ‘fair wear and tear’. The claim for costs to replace this drawer front is therefore dismissed.
The damage to the bench is dismissed because I am not satisfied that the landlords have established that the damage occurred during the tenancy. As mentioned, Mrs Thompson claims that the area was chipped at the tenancy commencement. The landlords dispute that it was but there they did not provide evidence to support their evidence such as a signed pre tenancy inspection report or photographs of the bench taken before the tenancy commenced.
The landlords provided a quote to replace the two drawer fronts and repair the bench, but the quote does not itemise the cost to repair the three items. Doing the best I can on the evidence provided I consider the sum of $200.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage to the kitchen drawer. Carpet damage
The landlords claim the cost to replace the master bedroom carpet.
Mrs Thompson accepts the damage to the bedroom carpet, but she disputes that the carpet required replacement. She said that she obtained a price of $80.00 to have the area (approximately 5 by 7 cm in size in a corner of the room) repaired before the tenancy ended. However, she said that the landlords wanted the carpet replaced.
The landlords said that they had the carpet replaced rather than repaired because they believed a repair would be visible.
In the circumstances I consider that the tenants should be liable for the cost to repair the carpet only. The landlords have not provided sufficient evidence to support their belief that a repair would be visible or would otherwise not adequately remedy the damage. Wall damage
I accept that this damage occurred during the tenancy. I also accept that the damage to the bedroom wall (a small hole) is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage
However, I dismiss the claim for the damage to the dining room wall. The damage is a small dent (that Mrs Thompson said was caused when moving furniture) and I consider this to come within the fair wear and tear category rather than careless or intentional damage.
In the circumstances I consider compensation equalling half the cost claimed to repair both walls is reasonable to compensate the landlords for the bedroom wall damage. Curtains
Again, Mrs Thompson accepts liability for the damage to two bedrooms and the living room curtains, which she said was caused by a rabbit that her children brought inside. However, she disputes the amount claimed (based on a quote to replace the three sets of curtains). She claims that the curtains could have been repaired rather than replaced.
I am not satisfied that Mrs Thompson as provided sufficient evidence to support her claim that the curtains could be successfully repaired or what the cost to have them repaired might be. I therefore consider it reasonable for the landlord to have them replaced. The amount claimed, $3,907.99, is based on a quote for the making of new curtains.
However, as mentioned above, the landlords have insurance for the damage with a policy excess of $550.00 and therefore the tenants’ liability is limited to the policy excess payable by the landlords. Mrs Thompson was unsure whether the damage in all rooms was caused at the same time and therefore it is likely that an insurer would consider that the damage to the curtains in each room is subject to a separate excess. I therefore find the tenants liable for the sum of $1,650.00 (three times the $550 excess) for the damage to the curtains. This sum is less than the cost claimed to replace them, even after taking into account depreciation or betterment (the curtains were approximately four years old and curtains are expected to last approximately eight years before requiring replacement). Tribunal fee
Both parties have been partially successful in their claims, and I therefore make no order for payment of the Tribunal application fee paid by each.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4554276 — net $2,305.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Kitchen drawer front damage	$200.00	Kitchen drawer front damage
Carpet damage	$80.00	Carpet damage
Wall damage	$375.00	Wall damage
Curtain damage	$1,650.00	Curtain damage
Net award	$2,305.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,305.00

Order

Katherine Mary Thompson and Mark Thompson to pay Michael Alan Collins and Raewyn Louise Collins $2,305.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6377461-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Michael Collins and Raewyn Collins: $2,305.00 Katherine Thompson and Mark Thompson: $95.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mrs Thompson represented the tenants.
The tenants applied for payment of the bond and the landlords cross applied for costs to repair damage to the premises following the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants 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, or others at the premises with their permission, did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage: sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies At 1986 (the Act).
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. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent: section 49B(3) of the Act. 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: section 49B(1) of the Act.
The landlords have insurance with an excess of $550.00 for each claim.
The landlords claim costs to remedy the following damage: • Cuts/chips to two kitchen drawer fronts and chipping on the side of the kitchen bench: $1,587.17 • Hole in the carpet in the master bedroom: $888.00 • Damage to the wall in a bedroom and in the dining room: $750.00 • Damage to the curtains (rips) in two bedrooms and the lounge: $3,907.99 Kitchen drawer fronts and bench
Mrs Thompson accepts the claim for damage to one of the tops of the drawers in the kitchen which she said was caused by their 10 year old son trying to close the drawer with a knife stuck in it. However, she denies any knowledge of the damage to another drawer front, and she said that the bench was chipped in the area claimed at the tenancy commencement.
I dismiss the claim for the damage to the second drawer. The photographs of the damage show very small minor chips/dents on the top edge of the drawer. I consider this damage to be more likely than not as a result of ‘fair wear and tear’. The claim for costs to replace this drawer front is therefore dismissed.
The damage to the bench is dismissed because I am not satisfied that the landlords have established that the damage occurred during the tenancy. As mentioned, Mrs Thompson claims that the area was chipped at the tenancy commencement. The landlords dispute that it was but there they did not provide evidence to support their evidence such as a signed pre tenancy inspection report or photographs of the bench taken before the tenancy commenced.
The landlords provided a quote to replace the two drawer fronts and repair the bench, but the quote does not itemise the cost to repair the three items. Doing the best I can on the evidence provided I consider the sum of $200.00 reasonable to compensate the landlord for the damage to the kitchen drawer. Carpet damage
The landlords claim the cost to replace the master bedroom carpet.
Mrs Thompson accepts the damage to the bedroom carpet, but she disputes that the carpet required replacement. She said that she obtained a price of $80.00 to have the area (approximately 5 by 7 cm in size in a corner of the room) repaired before the tenancy ended. However, she said that the landlords wanted the carpet replaced.
The landlords said that they had the carpet replaced rather than repaired because they believed a repair would be visible.
In the circumstances I consider that the tenants should be liable for the cost to repair the carpet only. The landlords have not provided sufficient evidence to support their belief that a repair would be visible or would otherwise not adequately remedy the damage. Wall damage
I accept that this damage occurred during the tenancy. I also accept that the damage to the bedroom wall (a small hole) is beyond fair wear and tear and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage
However, I dismiss the claim for the damage to the dining room wall. The damage is a small dent (that Mrs Thompson said was caused when moving furniture) and I consider this to come within the fair wear and tear category rather than careless or intentional damage.
In the circumstances I consider compensation equalling half the cost claimed to repair both walls is reasonable to compensate the landlords for the bedroom wall damage. Curtains
Again, Mrs Thompson accepts liability for the damage to two bedrooms and the living room curtains, which she said was caused by a rabbit that her children brought inside. However, she disputes the amount claimed (based on a quote to replace the three sets of curtains). She claims that the curtains could have been repaired rather than replaced.
I am not satisfied that Mrs Thompson as provided sufficient evidence to support her claim that the curtains could be successfully repaired or what the cost to have them repaired might be. I therefore consider it reasonable for the landlord to have them replaced. The amount claimed, $3,907.99, is based on a quote for the making of new curtains.
However, as mentioned above, the landlords have insurance for the damage with a policy excess of $550.00 and therefore the tenants’ liability is limited to the policy excess payable by the landlords. Mrs Thompson was unsure whether the damage in all rooms was caused at the same time and therefore it is likely that an insurer would consider that the damage to the curtains in each room is subject to a separate excess. I therefore find the tenants liable for the sum of $1,650.00 (three times the $550 excess) for the damage to the curtains. This sum is less than the cost claimed to replace them, even after taking into account depreciation or betterment (the curtains were approximately four years old and curtains are expected to last approximately eight years before requiring replacement). Tribunal fee
Both parties have been partially successful in their claims, and I therefore make no order for payment of the Tribunal application fee paid by each.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4554276 — Property damage at 11 McGrath Drive, Lincoln 7608

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4554276 — Property damage at 11 McGrath Drive, Lincoln 7608

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions