What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4617898?

The tribunal order states: Buildcorp Management Limited must pay $334.72 to Sreechitra Sreedharan

How much money was awarded in case 4617898?

Property Damage: $550.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617898?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617898?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9758845-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4617898?

The tribunal order states: Buildcorp Management Limited must pay $334.72 to Sreechitra Sreedharan

How much money was awarded in case 4617898?

Property Damage: $550.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4617898?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4617898?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9758845-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat I3, 9 The Avenue, Albany, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4617898 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4617898 — net $550.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Damaged bathroom vanity	$550.28	Replace furnishings: Damaged bathroom vanity
Net award	$550.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$550.28

Order

Buildcorp Management Limited must pay $334.72 to Sreechitra Sreedharan from the bond received from the Bond Centre. The amount is calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The case
This case concerns a dispute over a bond refund between the tenant, Ms Sreedharan, and the landlord. There is no dispute the tenancy commenced on 19 November 2018 and ended on 26 May 2023. The tenancy went on for just over four years and six months.
Mr Wang and Ms McLellan are the representatives of the landlord. They are the property managers. Mr Wang is the lead property manager in the present case.
The tenant had signed a bond form, which she claims was blank at the time of signing, and was unaware that this would result in her bond ($885) going to the landlord. Mr Wang, however, claims that the tenant agreed to forfeit the bond to cover the cost of repairing a damaged vanity in the bathroom of the property.
Mr Wang claims that the damages were specifically related to the bathroom vanity, which he alleges was damaged due to the tenant’s carelessness.
The tenant disputes this, stating that the damage to the bathroom vanity was due to ongoing issues with flooding in the bathroom and kitchen, which she had reported to Mr Wang. The tenant argues that the damage was not her fault, but rather a result of the property's condition, and therefore should be considered fair wear and tear.
Mr Wang maintains that the damage was due to the tenant's carelessness, and that the cost of replacing the bathroom vanity was significant. He also states that he had taken care of the cleaning costs, and that the bond was only used to cover the replacement costs.
Mr Wang claims that he had reminded the tenant to clear the shower drain during inspections, but the problem persisted. On the other hand, the tenant insists that she has done her best to maintain the property and that Mr Wang's claim for the cost of replacing the bathroom vanity is unfair.
I would like to note that although Mr Wang used the word “repair” throughout the hearing, the invoice he submitted stated that he “replaced the damaged vanity”. The photos submitted into evidence reveal that the bathroom vanity was “brand new”.
In my view, the bathroom vanity was replaced with a new one and not just repaired.

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.
Mr. Wang did not suggest that the tenant intentionally damaged the bathroom vanity. Instead, he submitted that the tenant failed to clear the bathroom drain, which caused the water to wet the bathroom vanity. Over time, this caused damage to the bottom of the vanity.
The damage to the bottom of the vanity is significant and indicates water damage over a prolonged period. If the tenant suspected a water leak in the bathroom, she was required to report it to the landlord under section 40(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act ("RTA").
If the tenant reported a water leak issue in the bathroom to Mr Wang under section 40(1)(d) RTA, he would then be required under section 45(1)(b) RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Compliance with section 40(1)(d) RTA is necessary to maintain a record of issues reported to the landlord. In the present case, the tenant did report to Mr Wang from time to time the issues she encountered. They are: a. On 1 November 2019 – Kitchen sink blocked. b. On 13 November 2020 – Bathroom flooding. c. On 21 September 2021 – Ceiling leakage and carpet flooded. d. On 7 July 2022 – Sewage blocked. e. On 12 July 2022 – power related f. On 13 September 2022 – smoke alarm replaced g. On 31 October 2022 – Toilet clogging,
Mr Wang has only received one complaint regarding the bathroom flooding. The damage appears to be more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
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.
Mr Wang has submitted that depreciation should not be considered in this case. However, I disagree with this view because: a. The property was built in 2005/2006 and was renovated in 2014/2015. There is no evidence that the bathroom vanity was replaced during the 2014/2015 renovation. Therefore, I consider that a depreciation rate of 40% is appropriate; and b. The property now has a brand-new bathroom vanity, which looks better than before.
Therefore, a depreciation of 40% is appropriate.
I have observed that Mr Wang's invoice contains materials for replacing the damaged vanity, and there is no legal basis for the tenant to pay for them. Nor is there evidence to suggest the tenant damaged the materials.
Accordingly, I have calculated the compensation for the replacement of the damaged bathroom vanity to be $550.28. This amount will restore the landlord to the position they would have been in if the tenant had not breached her obligations, without making them better or worse off. Filing fee
Both parties have been successful in this proceeding. Therefore, the costs will be borne by each party individually. Name suppressions
I do not consider the landlord has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings. The name suppression order application for the landlord is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4617898 — net $550.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Damaged bathroom vanity	$550.28	Replace furnishings: Damaged bathroom vanity
Net award	$550.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$550.28

Order

Buildcorp Management Limited must pay $334.72 to Sreechitra Sreedharan from the bond received from the Bond Centre. The amount is calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The case
This case concerns a dispute over a bond refund between the tenant, Ms Sreedharan, and the landlord. There is no dispute the tenancy commenced on 19 November 2018 and ended on 26 May 2023. The tenancy went on for just over four years and six months.
Mr Wang and Ms McLellan are the representatives of the landlord. They are the property managers. Mr Wang is the lead property manager in the present case.
The tenant had signed a bond form, which she claims was blank at the time of signing, and was unaware that this would result in her bond ($885) going to the landlord. Mr Wang, however, claims that the tenant agreed to forfeit the bond to cover the cost of repairing a damaged vanity in the bathroom of the property.
Mr Wang claims that the damages were specifically related to the bathroom vanity, which he alleges was damaged due to the tenant’s carelessness.
The tenant disputes this, stating that the damage to the bathroom vanity was due to ongoing issues with flooding in the bathroom and kitchen, which she had reported to Mr Wang. The tenant argues that the damage was not her fault, but rather a result of the property's condition, and therefore should be considered fair wear and tear.
Mr Wang maintains that the damage was due to the tenant's carelessness, and that the cost of replacing the bathroom vanity was significant. He also states that he had taken care of the cleaning costs, and that the bond was only used to cover the replacement costs.
Mr Wang claims that he had reminded the tenant to clear the shower drain during inspections, but the problem persisted. On the other hand, the tenant insists that she has done her best to maintain the property and that Mr Wang's claim for the cost of replacing the bathroom vanity is unfair.
I would like to note that although Mr Wang used the word “repair” throughout the hearing, the invoice he submitted stated that he “replaced the damaged vanity”. The photos submitted into evidence reveal that the bathroom vanity was “brand new”.
In my view, the bathroom vanity was replaced with a new one and not just repaired.

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.
Mr. Wang did not suggest that the tenant intentionally damaged the bathroom vanity. Instead, he submitted that the tenant failed to clear the bathroom drain, which caused the water to wet the bathroom vanity. Over time, this caused damage to the bottom of the vanity.
The damage to the bottom of the vanity is significant and indicates water damage over a prolonged period. If the tenant suspected a water leak in the bathroom, she was required to report it to the landlord under section 40(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act ("RTA").
If the tenant reported a water leak issue in the bathroom to Mr Wang under section 40(1)(d) RTA, he would then be required under section 45(1)(b) RTA to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Compliance with section 40(1)(d) RTA is necessary to maintain a record of issues reported to the landlord. In the present case, the tenant did report to Mr Wang from time to time the issues she encountered. They are: a. On 1 November 2019 – Kitchen sink blocked. b. On 13 November 2020 – Bathroom flooding. c. On 21 September 2021 – Ceiling leakage and carpet flooded. d. On 7 July 2022 – Sewage blocked. e. On 12 July 2022 – power related f. On 13 September 2022 – smoke alarm replaced g. On 31 October 2022 – Toilet clogging,
Mr Wang has only received one complaint regarding the bathroom flooding. The damage appears to be more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability.
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.
Mr Wang has submitted that depreciation should not be considered in this case. However, I disagree with this view because: a. The property was built in 2005/2006 and was renovated in 2014/2015. There is no evidence that the bathroom vanity was replaced during the 2014/2015 renovation. Therefore, I consider that a depreciation rate of 40% is appropriate; and b. The property now has a brand-new bathroom vanity, which looks better than before.
Therefore, a depreciation of 40% is appropriate.
I have observed that Mr Wang's invoice contains materials for replacing the damaged vanity, and there is no legal basis for the tenant to pay for them. Nor is there evidence to suggest the tenant damaged the materials.
Accordingly, I have calculated the compensation for the replacement of the damaged bathroom vanity to be $550.28. This amount will restore the landlord to the position they would have been in if the tenant had not breached her obligations, without making them better or worse off. Filing fee
Both parties have been successful in this proceeding. Therefore, the costs will be borne by each party individually. Name suppressions
I do not consider the landlord has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings. The name suppression order application for the landlord is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617898 — Property damage at Unit/Flat I3, 9 The Avenue, Albany, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4617898 — Property damage at Unit/Flat I3, 9 The Avenue, Albany, Auckland 0632

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions