What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4562322 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 4562322?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $445.05 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $382.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4562322?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4562322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9391477-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4562322 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 4562322?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $445.05 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $382.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4562322?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4562322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9391477-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

20 Waterton Place, Avondale, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4562322 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4562322 — net $848.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$382.84	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Pest control: Breakfast bar	$445.05	Pest control: Breakfast bar
Net award	$848.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$848.33

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
Sunil Munasinghe Godawela Wahumpuragedara to pay [The landlord/s] $848.33 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. How much is owed for rent
The tenancy ended on 17 April 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $382.84 owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accept that the rent arrears are owing.

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.
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: -Damaged kitchen bench, missing veneer to left hand side of bench, inside sink cupboard and the bench behind the kitchen taps. -Broken corners off the breakfast bar -Damaged vanity doors in bathroom
The landlord has provided photographs of what she says is the damage and invoices to remedy the damage.
The damage to the kitchen bench occurred after the tenant was cleaning the bench. A strip of the veneer broke off. The tenant checked the rest of the bench and realised that the underneath of the bench was soaking wet and swollen from what appears to be a water leak. The bench behind the taps appeared to have mildew. The landlord says this is all signs of neglect on the part of the tenant and a lack of reporting.
The tenants say she did not know of the leak until the day before she notified the property manager.
The photos clearly show water damage has caused all the damage to the bench, behind the taps and underneath the bench.
This is not damage that is the responsibility of the tenants.
Similarly, the landlord provided photos of the two-bathroom vanity cupboard doors being swollen and split. The tenant claim that he had no knowledge of the damage and could not explain how this had happened.
It is of interest that the property manager completed an inspection of the property on 28 February 2023 and did not notice any issues with the vanity.
I can not understand how the tenant could possibly have been responsible for damage to the cupboard doors.
This is wear and tear regardless of the age. There has been no evidence provided to me that could account for any careless, reckless, or intentional damage caused by the tenants.
The landlord provided an invoice and photos of damage to the breakfast bar. This breakfast bar was new when the tenancy began. Both corners had been broken off the breakfast bar. I consider this to have been reckless or careless by the tenant and he should be held liable for the cost of the repair.
The damage to the breakfast bar is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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 seeks $494.50 for the cost of the repairs to the breakfast bar. I take 10% off for depreciation. The tenant must pay the landlord $445.05 from the bond for the cost of the damage.
The bond is to be split as set out above.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4562322 — net $848.33 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$382.84	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Pest control: Breakfast bar	$445.05	Pest control: Breakfast bar
Net award	$848.33
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$848.33

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlords name and identifying details.
Sunil Munasinghe Godawela Wahumpuragedara to pay [The landlord/s] $848.33 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. How much is owed for rent
The tenancy ended on 17 April 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of $382.84 owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accept that the rent arrears are owing.

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.
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: -Damaged kitchen bench, missing veneer to left hand side of bench, inside sink cupboard and the bench behind the kitchen taps. -Broken corners off the breakfast bar -Damaged vanity doors in bathroom
The landlord has provided photographs of what she says is the damage and invoices to remedy the damage.
The damage to the kitchen bench occurred after the tenant was cleaning the bench. A strip of the veneer broke off. The tenant checked the rest of the bench and realised that the underneath of the bench was soaking wet and swollen from what appears to be a water leak. The bench behind the taps appeared to have mildew. The landlord says this is all signs of neglect on the part of the tenant and a lack of reporting.
The tenants say she did not know of the leak until the day before she notified the property manager.
The photos clearly show water damage has caused all the damage to the bench, behind the taps and underneath the bench.
This is not damage that is the responsibility of the tenants.
Similarly, the landlord provided photos of the two-bathroom vanity cupboard doors being swollen and split. The tenant claim that he had no knowledge of the damage and could not explain how this had happened.
It is of interest that the property manager completed an inspection of the property on 28 February 2023 and did not notice any issues with the vanity.
I can not understand how the tenant could possibly have been responsible for damage to the cupboard doors.
This is wear and tear regardless of the age. There has been no evidence provided to me that could account for any careless, reckless, or intentional damage caused by the tenants.
The landlord provided an invoice and photos of damage to the breakfast bar. This breakfast bar was new when the tenancy began. Both corners had been broken off the breakfast bar. I consider this to have been reckless or careless by the tenant and he should be held liable for the cost of the repair.
The damage to the breakfast bar is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
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 seeks $494.50 for the cost of the repairs to the breakfast bar. I take 10% off for depreciation. The tenant must pay the landlord $445.05 from the bond for the cost of the damage.
The bond is to be split as set out above.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4562322 — Rent arrears at 20 Waterton Place, Avondale, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4562322 — Rent arrears at 20 Waterton Place, Avondale, Auckland 1026

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