What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4561759?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4561759?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4561759?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4561759?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9287664-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4561759?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4561759?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Walls: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4561759?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4561759?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9287664-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Thatcher Street, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4561759 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4561759 — net $550.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Walls	$1,500.00		Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond held by the landlord		$970.00	Bond held by the landlord
Total award	$1,520.44	$970.00
Net award	$550.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$550.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Raymond John Smith to pay Mary Kathleen O’Brien $550.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to the walls, a door’s paint, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Before I consider the landlord’s case
In this case, Ms O'Brien, the landlord, has presented her case effectively and with thorough preparation.
She explained that the property was originally her parents' house and that she, her sister, and her parents have lived there since she was 10 years old.
After her mother's passing, Ms O'Brien purchased the house as a deceased estate from her sister and made various improvements to preserve its sentimental value.
While it is understandable that Ms O'Brien wants the house to be in the best possible condition, it is important to apply the principles of the Residential Tenancies Act. According to the Act, tenants are not obligated to make improvements to the property. They are only responsible for any damages beyond fair wear and tear.
Similarly, landlords are not expected to go beyond the requirements outlined in the Act to improve the property to the satisfaction of the tenants.
I now turn to the issue at hand without going into excessive detail.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Mr Smith’s tenancy in the aforementioned property commenced on 2nd April 2010 and terminated on 4th June 2022, spanning over a period of 12 years, 2 months, and 3 days.
During his time as a tenant, Ms O'Brien undertook a renovation of the property in the year 2018. This renovation involved a substantial investment of money, indicating the significance of the property to her.
In the hearing, Ms O’Brien spoke about the house, describing it as "a special house to remember". This statement clearly indicates the importance and significance she attached to the property.
While I am not provided with specific details about why the house holds such sentimental value, it can be inferred that it holds cherished memories or perhaps has historical significance. Understanding the personal value she places on the house helps me comprehend Ms O’Brien's desire to have it maintained in pristine condition.
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.
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. Damage to the walls
In the hearing, Mr Smith said “I am a collector of items and I display things” including “antiques and Scandinavian furniture”. Mr Smith accepted that he caused damage to the walls by hanging items on them. Although the tenancy agreement did not specify whether he could hang items or not, Mr Smith accepted responsibility for the damage.
According to the Act, tenants are responsible for intentional damages, even if not explicitly mentioned in the tenancy agreement. Mr Smith did not argue that the damage was fair wear and tear. Damage to the doors
The photos Ms O’Brien submitted have not been able to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that the damage on the door's jamb, edge near the lock handle, and top corner is not fair wear and tear.
This is because Ms O’Brien has not pointed out to me that the damage is caused by intentional application of force or even recklessness. Compensation
Ms O’Brien submitted that the cost of repair is $6,670. The scope of works included is as follows: a. Full floor cover install; b. Plaster and prep walls; c. Undercoat all walls throughout house top and bottom level; and d. Apply 3 resin coats to finished products.
Mr Smith submitted that he is only liable for $600 because he could put the walls back to where they were had not because Ms O’Brien told him not to return to the property.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. Ms O’Brien should be returned to the position she would have been in had Mr Smith not breached his 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.
In considering the compensation sought by Ms O’Brien, my view is that her claim is excessive. The work she completed on the walls was necessary for its improvement, and therefore beyond repair.
On the other hand, Mr Smith’s offer of $600 is significantly below what can be considered a fair amount, as it fails to take into account the necessary expenses incurred in completing the tasks.
In light of these considerations, I award $1,500 to Ms O’Brien acknowledging the repair work done. Filing fee
Because Ms O’Brien has partly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4561759 — net $550.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Walls	$1,500.00		Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond held by the landlord		$970.00	Bond held by the landlord
Total award	$1,520.44	$970.00
Net award	$550.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$550.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Raymond John Smith to pay Mary Kathleen O’Brien $550.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to the walls, a door’s paint, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Before I consider the landlord’s case
In this case, Ms O'Brien, the landlord, has presented her case effectively and with thorough preparation.
She explained that the property was originally her parents' house and that she, her sister, and her parents have lived there since she was 10 years old.
After her mother's passing, Ms O'Brien purchased the house as a deceased estate from her sister and made various improvements to preserve its sentimental value.
While it is understandable that Ms O'Brien wants the house to be in the best possible condition, it is important to apply the principles of the Residential Tenancies Act. According to the Act, tenants are not obligated to make improvements to the property. They are only responsible for any damages beyond fair wear and tear.
Similarly, landlords are not expected to go beyond the requirements outlined in the Act to improve the property to the satisfaction of the tenants.
I now turn to the issue at hand without going into excessive detail.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Mr Smith’s tenancy in the aforementioned property commenced on 2nd April 2010 and terminated on 4th June 2022, spanning over a period of 12 years, 2 months, and 3 days.
During his time as a tenant, Ms O'Brien undertook a renovation of the property in the year 2018. This renovation involved a substantial investment of money, indicating the significance of the property to her.
In the hearing, Ms O’Brien spoke about the house, describing it as "a special house to remember". This statement clearly indicates the importance and significance she attached to the property.
While I am not provided with specific details about why the house holds such sentimental value, it can be inferred that it holds cherished memories or perhaps has historical significance. Understanding the personal value she places on the house helps me comprehend Ms O’Brien's desire to have it maintained in pristine condition.
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.
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. Damage to the walls
In the hearing, Mr Smith said “I am a collector of items and I display things” including “antiques and Scandinavian furniture”. Mr Smith accepted that he caused damage to the walls by hanging items on them. Although the tenancy agreement did not specify whether he could hang items or not, Mr Smith accepted responsibility for the damage.
According to the Act, tenants are responsible for intentional damages, even if not explicitly mentioned in the tenancy agreement. Mr Smith did not argue that the damage was fair wear and tear. Damage to the doors
The photos Ms O’Brien submitted have not been able to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that the damage on the door's jamb, edge near the lock handle, and top corner is not fair wear and tear.
This is because Ms O’Brien has not pointed out to me that the damage is caused by intentional application of force or even recklessness. Compensation
Ms O’Brien submitted that the cost of repair is $6,670. The scope of works included is as follows: a. Full floor cover install; b. Plaster and prep walls; c. Undercoat all walls throughout house top and bottom level; and d. Apply 3 resin coats to finished products.
Mr Smith submitted that he is only liable for $600 because he could put the walls back to where they were had not because Ms O’Brien told him not to return to the property.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. Ms O’Brien should be returned to the position she would have been in had Mr Smith not breached his 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.
In considering the compensation sought by Ms O’Brien, my view is that her claim is excessive. The work she completed on the walls was necessary for its improvement, and therefore beyond repair.
On the other hand, Mr Smith’s offer of $600 is significantly below what can be considered a fair amount, as it fails to take into account the necessary expenses incurred in completing the tasks.
In light of these considerations, I award $1,500 to Ms O’Brien acknowledging the repair work done. Filing fee
Because Ms O’Brien has partly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4561759 — Property damage at 24 Thatcher Street, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4561759 — Property damage at 24 Thatcher Street, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

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