What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4569740 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4569740?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Laminate: $183.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4569740?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4569740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9396629-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4569740 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 4569740?

Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Laminate: $183.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4569740?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4569740?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9396629-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4569740 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4569740 — net $283.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Laminate	$183.13	Repairs: Laminate
Repairs	$100.00	Repairs
Net award	$283.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$283.13

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenants] must pay [The landlord/s] $283.13 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to disburse the bond in accordance with the table.

Reasons

Ji Sung attended the hearing for the owners’ agent. One of the owners also attended. 1
One of the tenants attended and represented the other tenant also.
The tenancy began on 10 November 2019 and ended on 23 March 2023, a period of more than three years.
The landlord has applied compensation for damage and payment from the bond
The landlord claims the tenants damaged the dining room’s laminated wooden flooring, the carpet, and the interior paintwork.
The Tribunal must determine whether the tenants are liable for each item of damage alleged against them.

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

Legal principles

The law in this area is governed by ss 40 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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: ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B of the RTA.
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): s 49B(3)(a) 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. 2 1 I heard this matter on 7 September 2023. 2 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
If it is proven that the tenants are liable for damage to the premises, in assessing compensation, the Tribunal must take account of betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan is relevant.
The Tribunal heard evidence and submissions on each of the following three areas of alleged damage. Burn mark on dining room floor
The parties accept, the laminate flooring in the area of the dining room has a small burn mark. It is small (about the size of a 10-cent coin) but deep.
The landlord says the damage was not there at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant says that the damage was present at the beginning of the tenancy.
Ms Sung was the property manager throughout the tenancy. She prepared the ingoing inspection report and the outgoing inspection report. My impression of Ms Sung is that she was efficient and competent and professional in her management of the tenancy. Her documentation was well-ordered and she had a sound grasp of the landlord’s and the tenants’ respective obligations.
The entry report makes no mention of a burn mark. However, the outgoing inspection report records “Small burn mark” against the “Floors” of the “Kitchen/Dining” section of the report.
The owner is confident that there was no burn mark in the flooring at the beginning of the tenancy because he was living in the premises immediately prior to the tenancy beginning. He says that he is observant about such matters and would have known if the burn mark was present.
The ingoing photographs do not clearly show the area that is now damaged, so they do not assist either way.
The tenants regularly burnt incense during the tenancy which would provide a likely mechanism for the burn to occur. The owners also burnt incense, however.
The tenants covered the burn mark with some white tape. They never reported the burn mark to the landlord during the tenancy.
Having listened to the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the floor was not damaged before the tenancy began. Of particular note in this finding, Ms Sung did not notice any burn mark prior to the tenancy but did notice one after the tenancy ended. The tenants never raised the burn mark with the landlord during the tenancy. That was not a requirement or determinative, but if the burn mark were pre-existing it would have been a natural thing to mention to the landlord.
The owner does strike me as an observant and careful person. I think he would have noticed the burn mark if it was there prior to the tenancy beginning. His evidence bolsters that of Ms Sung which I principally rely on.
The tenants have not provided any explanation as to how the burn mark occurred. It probably occurred accidentally as a result of momentary carelessness.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants are liable for the damage.
The owner got an email quote to repair the floor for $408.25.
The repair has not been done despite being more than six months since the tenancy ended and the premises having been re-tenanted. Despite this long delay, the owner says that he does intend to get the floor repaired once judgement is ordered.
The fact that the floor has not been repaired yet and the premises has been re- let at the same weekly rent does raise a question as to whether the floor needs to be repaired or will be repaired. Nonetheless, there has been a devaluation in the laminate flooring. The flooring is over 15 years old. It is more than halfway through its likely lifespan.
In the circumstances, I find it appropriate to order that the tenants pay 50 per cent of the repair amount. Carpet stains
There were a couple of red stains on the carpets of one of the bedrooms.
The staining occurred during the tenancy. It was submitted the stains were from ordinary wear and tear, but if stains like this were treated as ordinary wear and tear without any proof that the staining was not caused carelessly, houses could be left in an absolute mess without any repercussion.
The tenants have not discharged the onus of proving that the damage was not caused carelessly.
The owner has a quote to replace the affected section of carpet with a piece of carpet cadged from the wardrobe for $200.00.
Once again, the owner has not replaced the carpet and the premises have been re-tenanted. The carpet is about 17 years old. Carpet has a typical expected lifespan of about eight to ten years.
For the same reasons as just discussed, the Tribunal orders the tenants to pay for 50 percent of the cost claimed. Wall repainting
The landlord alleges the tenants damaged the ceiling and wall paintwork by burning incense.
The owner sent himself an email from his Mitre 10 email address on 27 April 2023, forwarding his cleaners email to him that said among other things: After the site investigation, we noticed that most of the walls/ceilings, including down an upstairs, are covered with ash and the could or the ceiling/walls has been degraded and collected dirt and greased up. ... As discussed at the property and shown, the little section I cleaned illustrates this cleaning is not worth it and will create mor mass as we progress. To fix this issue, I recommend you clean/paint the whole house.
The owner repainted the interior of the premises himself and seeks an order for $2,269.69 for his labour and materials.
The tenants say that at the end-of-tenancy inspection, Ms Sung made no mention of the walls being damaged. That is reflected in Ms Sung’s outgoing inspection report records virtually all the walls and ceilings as “good”. Only two of the bedrooms’ ceilings were recorded to be “average” – one was “discoloured” and the other had “glow in the dark stickers”. The garage walls were “average”, but the ingoing report recorded them as “average” also.
Ms Sung says the discolouration was only discovered when attempts were made to clean the walls which explains why she did not notice the alleged damage.
The owner also burnt incense when he lived in the home with his family but says he painted the interior in 2019 and his burning of incense never damaged the walls.
I am not satisfied that the interior paintwork was actually damaged. Ms Sung is a competent property manager. She presented the premises to the tenants at the beginning of the tenancy, regularly inspected the premises during the tenancy, and took possession of the premises at the end of the tenancy. She did not observe that the tenants’ actions were damaging the walls during the tenancy. She did not detect any damage to the walls when she carried out her final inspection.
Some discolouration of the paintwork is to be expected over time, whether that be caused by cooking residues, pollution, smoking, or some other mechanism. I note that wallpaper and painted surfaces only have an anticipated lifespan of about five years.
Even if the paintwork were “damaged” as claimed, I am satisfied that such damage was due to ordinary wear and tear. I accept the tenant’s evidence that she did not carelessly fill the interior, unaired with clouds of incense smoke.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the interior paintwork is dismissed. Non-publication
The landlord seeks non-publication of its name and identifying details. The tenants did not formally apply for non-publication, but I infer that they intended to apply for non-publication because publication could hamper their ability to find rental accommodation in the future.
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.
Both parties have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. The Tribunal does not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the parties’ identifying details, including the premises’ address.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4569740 — net $283.13 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Laminate	$183.13	Repairs: Laminate
Repairs	$100.00	Repairs
Net award	$283.13
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$283.13

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details, including the tenancy address must not be published.
[The tenants] must pay [The landlord/s] $283.13 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to disburse the bond in accordance with the table.

Reasons

Ji Sung attended the hearing for the owners’ agent. One of the owners also attended. 1
One of the tenants attended and represented the other tenant also.
The tenancy began on 10 November 2019 and ended on 23 March 2023, a period of more than three years.
The landlord has applied compensation for damage and payment from the bond
The landlord claims the tenants damaged the dining room’s laminated wooden flooring, the carpet, and the interior paintwork.
The Tribunal must determine whether the tenants are liable for each item of damage alleged against them.

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

Legal principles

The law in this area is governed by ss 40 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
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: ss 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B of the RTA.
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): s 49B(3)(a) 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. 2 1 I heard this matter on 7 September 2023. 2 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
If it is proven that the tenants are liable for damage to the premises, in assessing compensation, the Tribunal must take account of betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan is relevant.
The Tribunal heard evidence and submissions on each of the following three areas of alleged damage. Burn mark on dining room floor
The parties accept, the laminate flooring in the area of the dining room has a small burn mark. It is small (about the size of a 10-cent coin) but deep.
The landlord says the damage was not there at the beginning of the tenancy. The tenant says that the damage was present at the beginning of the tenancy.
Ms Sung was the property manager throughout the tenancy. She prepared the ingoing inspection report and the outgoing inspection report. My impression of Ms Sung is that she was efficient and competent and professional in her management of the tenancy. Her documentation was well-ordered and she had a sound grasp of the landlord’s and the tenants’ respective obligations.
The entry report makes no mention of a burn mark. However, the outgoing inspection report records “Small burn mark” against the “Floors” of the “Kitchen/Dining” section of the report.
The owner is confident that there was no burn mark in the flooring at the beginning of the tenancy because he was living in the premises immediately prior to the tenancy beginning. He says that he is observant about such matters and would have known if the burn mark was present.
The ingoing photographs do not clearly show the area that is now damaged, so they do not assist either way.
The tenants regularly burnt incense during the tenancy which would provide a likely mechanism for the burn to occur. The owners also burnt incense, however.
The tenants covered the burn mark with some white tape. They never reported the burn mark to the landlord during the tenancy.
Having listened to the evidence, I find it more likely than not that the floor was not damaged before the tenancy began. Of particular note in this finding, Ms Sung did not notice any burn mark prior to the tenancy but did notice one after the tenancy ended. The tenants never raised the burn mark with the landlord during the tenancy. That was not a requirement or determinative, but if the burn mark were pre-existing it would have been a natural thing to mention to the landlord.
The owner does strike me as an observant and careful person. I think he would have noticed the burn mark if it was there prior to the tenancy beginning. His evidence bolsters that of Ms Sung which I principally rely on.
The tenants have not provided any explanation as to how the burn mark occurred. It probably occurred accidentally as a result of momentary carelessness.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the tenants are liable for the damage.
The owner got an email quote to repair the floor for $408.25.
The repair has not been done despite being more than six months since the tenancy ended and the premises having been re-tenanted. Despite this long delay, the owner says that he does intend to get the floor repaired once judgement is ordered.
The fact that the floor has not been repaired yet and the premises has been re- let at the same weekly rent does raise a question as to whether the floor needs to be repaired or will be repaired. Nonetheless, there has been a devaluation in the laminate flooring. The flooring is over 15 years old. It is more than halfway through its likely lifespan.
In the circumstances, I find it appropriate to order that the tenants pay 50 per cent of the repair amount. Carpet stains
There were a couple of red stains on the carpets of one of the bedrooms.
The staining occurred during the tenancy. It was submitted the stains were from ordinary wear and tear, but if stains like this were treated as ordinary wear and tear without any proof that the staining was not caused carelessly, houses could be left in an absolute mess without any repercussion.
The tenants have not discharged the onus of proving that the damage was not caused carelessly.
The owner has a quote to replace the affected section of carpet with a piece of carpet cadged from the wardrobe for $200.00.
Once again, the owner has not replaced the carpet and the premises have been re-tenanted. The carpet is about 17 years old. Carpet has a typical expected lifespan of about eight to ten years.
For the same reasons as just discussed, the Tribunal orders the tenants to pay for 50 percent of the cost claimed. Wall repainting
The landlord alleges the tenants damaged the ceiling and wall paintwork by burning incense.
The owner sent himself an email from his Mitre 10 email address on 27 April 2023, forwarding his cleaners email to him that said among other things: After the site investigation, we noticed that most of the walls/ceilings, including down an upstairs, are covered with ash and the could or the ceiling/walls has been degraded and collected dirt and greased up. ... As discussed at the property and shown, the little section I cleaned illustrates this cleaning is not worth it and will create mor mass as we progress. To fix this issue, I recommend you clean/paint the whole house.
The owner repainted the interior of the premises himself and seeks an order for $2,269.69 for his labour and materials.
The tenants say that at the end-of-tenancy inspection, Ms Sung made no mention of the walls being damaged. That is reflected in Ms Sung’s outgoing inspection report records virtually all the walls and ceilings as “good”. Only two of the bedrooms’ ceilings were recorded to be “average” – one was “discoloured” and the other had “glow in the dark stickers”. The garage walls were “average”, but the ingoing report recorded them as “average” also.
Ms Sung says the discolouration was only discovered when attempts were made to clean the walls which explains why she did not notice the alleged damage.
The owner also burnt incense when he lived in the home with his family but says he painted the interior in 2019 and his burning of incense never damaged the walls.
I am not satisfied that the interior paintwork was actually damaged. Ms Sung is a competent property manager. She presented the premises to the tenants at the beginning of the tenancy, regularly inspected the premises during the tenancy, and took possession of the premises at the end of the tenancy. She did not observe that the tenants’ actions were damaging the walls during the tenancy. She did not detect any damage to the walls when she carried out her final inspection.
Some discolouration of the paintwork is to be expected over time, whether that be caused by cooking residues, pollution, smoking, or some other mechanism. I note that wallpaper and painted surfaces only have an anticipated lifespan of about five years.
Even if the paintwork were “damaged” as claimed, I am satisfied that such damage was due to ordinary wear and tear. I accept the tenant’s evidence that she did not carelessly fill the interior, unaired with clouds of incense smoke.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the interior paintwork is dismissed. Non-publication
The landlord seeks non-publication of its name and identifying details. The tenants did not formally apply for non-publication, but I infer that they intended to apply for non-publication because publication could hamper their ability to find rental accommodation in the future.
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.
Both parties have substantially succeeded in the proceedings. The Tribunal does not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the parties’ identifying details, including the premises’ address.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4569740 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4569740 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions