How much money was awarded in case 4581291?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rust Remover: $21.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4581291?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4581291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9341171-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4581291?

Cleaning: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rust Remover: $21.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4581291?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4581291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9341171-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4581291 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4581291 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4581291. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Tile insurance excess	$500.00	Tile insurance excess
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rust remover	$21.85	Rust remover
Repairs: Painting	$200.00	Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $892.29 Christian Kuun: $1,707.71

The orders made are shown in the table below.

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this hearing on 25 August 2023.

The premises are at [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”).

The tenancy of the premises commenced on 27 August 2022 and ended on 15 December 2022.

The landlord seeks compensation for; • A range of damage, which the landlord says was caused by the tenant. • Loss of rental income. • Release of the bond. • Reimbursement of the filing fee.

The party bringing the claim is required to prove their claim to the civil standard called the “balance of probabilities.” The point where I accept that it is more likely than not that their version of events is correct. In crude mathematical terms, this might be described as meaning that the party whose claim has a probability threshold of 51% will meet the standard of proof. If they only reach 50% or less, then as a matter of law their claim must fail.

In this matter, the onus or job of proving the claim falls on the landlord.

Just because I may find for one party or the other on a particular issue, does not necessarily mean that the unsuccessful party is wrong. It merely means that on the evidence presented, I was not sufficiently certain to make an order.

The Tribunal is not required to set out all of the evidence proffered by the parties at the hearing, but they can be assured that it has been taken into account in reaching this decision.

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. In this matter the landlord is insured for tenant damage. The excess applicable to that insurance policy is $500.00.

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:

Broken shower tile- the claim is for $500.00, being the insurance excess. The tenant consented to an order being made that he pay compensation of $500.00.

The damage was caused in or about early November 2022. The damage was the breaking of a tile in the shower. A number of reasons for the tile becoming damaged were put forward by the tenant to the landlord and the landlord’s shower contractor. They were; • The tenant’s wife stood on the tile causing it to break. • The shower head fell onto the tile causing it to break. • The tenant’s wife stood on a shower squeegee causing the tile to break.

Whilst the breaking of a shower tile may at first blush seem a relatively small matter, it has resulted in a claim by the landlord on his insurance policy of $23,000.00. As it was explained, a glass door rests on the tile . The hole shower needs to be retiled so as to ensure the integrity of the water proofing.

As the tenant has consented to the order, I order the tenant to pay compensation to the landlord of $500.00.

Carpet Cleaning The landlord applied for compensation of $150.00. The tenant consented to an order for compensation being made for that amount.

Cleaning exterior tiles. The landlord provided photos of an exterior tiled area where the tenant accepts, he set up a braai for outdoor cooking. During the course of the tenancy the legs to the braai have caused some rust stains on the paving tiles beneath them.

The landlord said that he tried to remove the stains by using rust remover and a wire brush. He has provided photos which show some light staining remaining after the cleaning had taken place.

The tenant said that he also attempted to remove the stains using rust remover and a wire brush.

The landlord has discussed the matter with a contractor. The contractor says that the landlord would need to replace 10 of the pavers at a cost of $76.90 and labour to replace the pavers at $155.25. The landlord also seeks compensation for $21.85 for the rust remover.

The photos show that the pavers were not new at the commencement of the tenancy. They have marks and weathering commensurate with being installed in or around the building of the premises in 2007.

The paving contractor suggested that new pavers when installed, would stand out more amongst the exiting pavers than the rust marks.

The “after” photos provided by the landlord show very slight discolouring where the rust marks remain. It is likely that the remaining marks will fade in the elements over time. I do not consider that there is any ongoing damage, nor the need for replacement pavers. In the circumstances, I consider it reasonable for the tenant to pay the landlord $21.85 for the rust remover.

Painting. The landlord claims $396.25 to repair and repaint two damaged walls . The landlord says that damage was caused to the wall where a picture hook, which had been present prior to the tenancy commencing, had been removed by the tenant and replaced with a larger screw making the hole bigger. A second picture hook had been removed by the tenant leaving a “gouge in the wall”.

The tenant says that he had a painter spot fill and paint at least one hole in the house.

The premises were last painted approximately 15 years ago. The wall surfaces were no longer perfect at the commencement of the tenancy, as would be expected given the normal wear and tear of day to day use.

I find that the landlord has proven the minor damage occurred during the tenancy and 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.

I order the tenant to pay compensation of $200.00 towards the repair of the wall.

The landlord is claims compensation of $250.00 for lost rent. The landlord was able to relet the premises after the tenancy, but was obliged to reduce the rent by $50.00 per week due to the shower being unavailable to the new tenant.

To be liable for a loss of rent, the loss must be reasonably foreseeable by the tenant as a result of the damage and the loss needs to be caused as a result of something that the tenant did or did not do.

The tenant accepts that the tile in the shower was damaged. I do not accept however that the loss of rental suffered by the landlord would have been foreseeable to a tenant.

The damage was caused sometime in late October or early November 2022. The damage was a broken shower tile. The tenancy ended on 15 December 2023. It would not be foreseeable by the tenant that the damage caused would result in the shower being unable to be used for such an extended period. The claim is dismissed.

As [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The landlord has applied for name suppression. As the landlord has been substantially successful, suppression of the landlord details is ordered.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4581291. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Tile insurance excess	$500.00	Tile insurance excess
Carpet Cleaning	$150.00	Carpet Cleaning
Rust remover	$21.85	Rust remover
Repairs: Painting	$200.00	Repairs: Painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement