What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4557552 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 4557552?

Electricity: $878.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4557552?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4557552?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9190628-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4557552 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 4557552?

Electricity: $878.15 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4557552?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4557552?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9190628-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4557552 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4557552 — net $1,878.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electricity	$878.15	Electricity
Repairs: Insurance excess	$1,000.00	Repairs: Insurance excess
Net award	$1,878.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,878.15

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Sheryl Timoti at [Tenancy address suppressed] will end and possession will be granted to the landlord at 11.59 am on Sunday 10 September 2023.
Sheryl Timoti must pay [The landlord/s] $1,878.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, electricity arrears and compensation for damage.
After extensive evidence being heard relating to the landlord application for termination as a result of an alleged assault (s.55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and a breach of a 14 day breach notice (S.56 RTA), the parties consented to the Tribunal making an order that the tenancy be terminated on 10 September 2023 and that possession be granted to the landlord at that time.
As a result of that consent order being made, I do not propose traversing the evidence relating to the termination claims.
In the time between the hearing of this matter and the end of the tenancy, the tenant is reminded of their obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and not to cause damage. A breach of this obligation will inevitably lead to a further claim being made to the Tribunal by the landlord. In that event, the landlord may wish to bring notice of this order to the attention of any adjudicator hearing the matter.

How much is owed for electricity?

The landlord provided electricity invoices for the period from 28 December 2022 to 30 June 2023. Those invoices prove that the amount owing for electricity on 30 June 2023 is $878.15. The tenant said that the amount was not correct, but failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. In this matter, I prefer the evidence of 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
I asked the landlord if it held insurance for tenant damage. He said that he had checked with his insurer and that he did not.
The tenancy agreement entered into by the parties includes an insurance statement which records that the premises are insured with “IVA” and that there is an excess of $1,000.00. That statement helps a tenant to know what is covered by insurance and the excess payable on the insurance policy. I consider that it is reasonable for a tenant to be able to rely on the insurance statement in the tenancy agreement.
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: Damage to walls and a door. The tenant accepted that the damage had occurred during the tenancy, but disputed the landlord claim for $4,200.00 for repairs. I consider on the evidence placed before me by the parties that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount claimed by the landlord, as mentioned earlier in this matter, is limited to the insurance excess of $1,000.00 or 4 weeks rent whichever is the lesser. The excess is the lesser and that amount is proven.
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 the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord details is ordered.
The tenant also applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for suppression of the tenant details is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4557552 — net $1,878.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electricity	$878.15	Electricity
Repairs: Insurance excess	$1,000.00	Repairs: Insurance excess
Net award	$1,878.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,878.15

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Sheryl Timoti at [Tenancy address suppressed] will end and possession will be granted to the landlord at 11.59 am on Sunday 10 September 2023.
Sheryl Timoti must pay [The landlord/s] $1,878.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, electricity arrears and compensation for damage.
After extensive evidence being heard relating to the landlord application for termination as a result of an alleged assault (s.55(1)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and a breach of a 14 day breach notice (S.56 RTA), the parties consented to the Tribunal making an order that the tenancy be terminated on 10 September 2023 and that possession be granted to the landlord at that time.
As a result of that consent order being made, I do not propose traversing the evidence relating to the termination claims.
In the time between the hearing of this matter and the end of the tenancy, the tenant is reminded of their obligation to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy and not to cause damage. A breach of this obligation will inevitably lead to a further claim being made to the Tribunal by the landlord. In that event, the landlord may wish to bring notice of this order to the attention of any adjudicator hearing the matter.

How much is owed for electricity?

The landlord provided electricity invoices for the period from 28 December 2022 to 30 June 2023. Those invoices prove that the amount owing for electricity on 30 June 2023 is $878.15. The tenant said that the amount was not correct, but failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. In this matter, I prefer the evidence of 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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.
I asked the landlord if it held insurance for tenant damage. He said that he had checked with his insurer and that he did not.
The tenancy agreement entered into by the parties includes an insurance statement which records that the premises are insured with “IVA” and that there is an excess of $1,000.00. That statement helps a tenant to know what is covered by insurance and the excess payable on the insurance policy. I consider that it is reasonable for a tenant to be able to rely on the insurance statement in the tenancy agreement.
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: Damage to walls and a door. The tenant accepted that the damage had occurred during the tenancy, but disputed the landlord claim for $4,200.00 for repairs. I consider on the evidence placed before me by the parties that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount claimed by the landlord, as mentioned earlier in this matter, is limited to the insurance excess of $1,000.00 or 4 weeks rent whichever is the lesser. The excess is the lesser and that amount is proven.
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 the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord details is ordered.
The tenant also applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application for suppression of the tenant details is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4557552 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4557552 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for electricity?

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

How much is owed for electricity?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions