What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4619929 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 4619929?

Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4619929?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4619929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9219991-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4619929 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 4619929?

Cleaning: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4619929?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4619929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9219991-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4619929 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4619929 — net $1,670.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess – [Carpet cleaning	$550.00	Insurance excess – [Carpet cleaning
Insurance excess - Carpet replacement	$550.00	Insurance excess - Carpet replacement
Insurance excess - Hedge	$550.00	Insurance excess - Hedge
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,670.44
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,670.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,670.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,670.44 [The tenant/s]: $129.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on Friday 21 July 2023.
The tenanted premises were at [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”).
The tenancy started on 14 May 2020 and ended on 24 April 2023.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the premises and that this caused damage to the tenants belongings. The tenant further claims compensation for costs involved in dumping her damaged belongings. The tenant seeks release of her bond.
The landlord claims compensation for damage to the carpet and damage to a line of Buxus hedging, release of the bond and 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 tenant claims falls on the tenant and for proving the landlord claims 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. Tenant claims
The tenant claims are based on what the tenant says is a failure to maintain the premises. The premises include a garage. The tenant says that she was not told of any issues with the garage when the tenancy commenced.
The tenant says that she stored a range of items in the garage, the most important to her being camping equipment and tools.
The tenant first noticed an issue with the garage in approximately February or March 2021. She walked into the garage and could smell mould. The tenant says that she didn’t tell the landlord at that time and was personally unable to do anything about it due to medical condition.
The tenant found a warehouse to store her items and arranged to have her belongings shifted to the warehouse. Unfortunately, soon after the transfer, the tenant received a medical diagnosis which meant she could no longer afford the warehouse and had to return the goods to a container on the premises.
The tenant then received a 6 month notice of termination on her tenancy of the premises as the landlord wished to move back into the premises.
Two key issues cause the Tribunal difficulty.
First, the landlord says that she was never advised by the tenant of the leak in the garage which caused the tenants goods to be damaged. The tenant accepts that the first time that she mentioned it to the landlord was during an inspection in approximately March 2022. The landlord agreed that the only time the tenant mentioned the garage was at the inspection. The landlord said that the tenant mentioned that occasionally rain would get under the garage door when there was heavy rain. There was no other reference to a leak.
Secondly, the tenant was unable to provide evidence of the value of the damaged items. She said that the camping equipment and tools were between 3 months and 2 years old and that the purchase value was $6,500.00 approximately. That evidence does not provide sufficient detail, in the event that I were to find the landlord responsible for the damage.
A landlord must provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair. That obligation is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee unobservable defects before it causes damage. A tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of a defect and the need for repair. A landlord should then have a reasonable time within which to complete repairs.
The claim by the tenant relates to damage caused to the tenant belongings stored in the garage. The tenant says that the damage was caused by a leak. The tenant accepts that she did not inform the landlord of the damage until well after the damage had been caused.
For the reasons set out above, I dismiss the tenant claims for compensation. I cannot see that there has been a breach by the landlord of their obligations under the RTA.
I record that I fully accept the reasons given for the delay in advising the landlord by the tenant. Her medical diagnosis meant that she was unable to attend to matters in the fashion that she might have had circumstances been otherwise. Landlord claims

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. The landlord is insured. The excess on each claim is $550.00 as shown in the Tenancy Agreement entered into by the parties.
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: • Damage to carpet. • Damage to Buxus hedge.
The parties agree that at the end of the tenancy cordial or a similar liquid was accidentally spilt on the carpet. There is no suggestion that any damage was caused intentionally. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is liable.
The landlord seeks $570.31 as compensation for carpet treatment carried out by [Carpet cleaning company]. The charge includes travel.
The tenant said that she also arranged for commercial carpet cleaners to attend. The cleaners said that the carpet was so old that the stain couldn’t be removed.
In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to check to see whether the stain could be removed, before getting new carpet. The claim is proven, but is limited to $550.00 being the insurance excess.
The landlord seeks compensation for replacement carpet. The landlord has provided a quote from [Carpet company] dated 28 June 2023 to replace the carpet. The quote is for $3,313.81. The quote notes that “on inspection the carpet is estimated to be 10 years old”.
The landlord is insured. Even taking depreciation into account, the claim for the insurance excess of $550.00 is reasonable and that claim is proven.
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 has claimed for damage caused to a hedge consisting of Buxus hedge plants. The parties agreed that the damage had been accidentally caused by the tenant’s removal contractors. The landlord provided a quote from [Garden maintenance company] for the removal of the 20 damaged plants, new plants and replanting at a cost of $1,253.99.
The tenant said that there was a degree of contributory negligence by the landlord who she said allowed trees to become overgrown so that damage by the truck was inevitable. The tenant accepted that she had not been present when the damage was done.
The landlord referred to post tenancy inspection photos which said showed that the trees were not substantially overgrown.
In this matter, I accept the landlord evidence that damage has been caused accidentally by the tenant. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I do not consider that there has been sufficient evidence provided to prove the claim of contributory negligence. The tenant is liable.
The tenant is responsible for the acts of her agents. I indicated at the hearing that the tenant may have a claim against her contractors for negligence, but that is a matter for her to consider.
The landlord is insured for tenant damage. The excess is $550.00 and the tenant is ordered to pay that sum to the landlord.
As [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression of the landlord details is ordered.
The tenant raised concerns for her privacy relating to domestic violence issues. In the circumstances, I do not consider that there is any public interest in the matter and suppression of the tenant details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4619929 — net $1,670.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess – [Carpet cleaning	$550.00	Insurance excess – [Carpet cleaning
Insurance excess - Carpet replacement	$550.00	Insurance excess - Carpet replacement
Insurance excess - Hedge	$550.00	Insurance excess - Hedge
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,670.44
Bond	$1,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,670.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,670.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,670.44 [The tenant/s]: $129.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on Friday 21 July 2023.
The tenanted premises were at [Tenancy address suppressed] (“the premises”).
The tenancy started on 14 May 2020 and ended on 24 April 2023.
The tenant claims that the landlord failed to maintain the premises and that this caused damage to the tenants belongings. The tenant further claims compensation for costs involved in dumping her damaged belongings. The tenant seeks release of her bond.
The landlord claims compensation for damage to the carpet and damage to a line of Buxus hedging, release of the bond and 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 tenant claims falls on the tenant and for proving the landlord claims 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. Tenant claims
The tenant claims are based on what the tenant says is a failure to maintain the premises. The premises include a garage. The tenant says that she was not told of any issues with the garage when the tenancy commenced.
The tenant says that she stored a range of items in the garage, the most important to her being camping equipment and tools.
The tenant first noticed an issue with the garage in approximately February or March 2021. She walked into the garage and could smell mould. The tenant says that she didn’t tell the landlord at that time and was personally unable to do anything about it due to medical condition.
The tenant found a warehouse to store her items and arranged to have her belongings shifted to the warehouse. Unfortunately, soon after the transfer, the tenant received a medical diagnosis which meant she could no longer afford the warehouse and had to return the goods to a container on the premises.
The tenant then received a 6 month notice of termination on her tenancy of the premises as the landlord wished to move back into the premises.
Two key issues cause the Tribunal difficulty.
First, the landlord says that she was never advised by the tenant of the leak in the garage which caused the tenants goods to be damaged. The tenant accepts that the first time that she mentioned it to the landlord was during an inspection in approximately March 2022. The landlord agreed that the only time the tenant mentioned the garage was at the inspection. The landlord said that the tenant mentioned that occasionally rain would get under the garage door when there was heavy rain. There was no other reference to a leak.
Secondly, the tenant was unable to provide evidence of the value of the damaged items. She said that the camping equipment and tools were between 3 months and 2 years old and that the purchase value was $6,500.00 approximately. That evidence does not provide sufficient detail, in the event that I were to find the landlord responsible for the damage.
A landlord must provide and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair. That obligation is not absolute. A landlord does not have to foresee unobservable defects before it causes damage. A tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of a defect and the need for repair. A landlord should then have a reasonable time within which to complete repairs.
The claim by the tenant relates to damage caused to the tenant belongings stored in the garage. The tenant says that the damage was caused by a leak. The tenant accepts that she did not inform the landlord of the damage until well after the damage had been caused.
For the reasons set out above, I dismiss the tenant claims for compensation. I cannot see that there has been a breach by the landlord of their obligations under the RTA.
I record that I fully accept the reasons given for the delay in advising the landlord by the tenant. Her medical diagnosis meant that she was unable to attend to matters in the fashion that she might have had circumstances been otherwise. Landlord claims

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. The landlord is insured. The excess on each claim is $550.00 as shown in the Tenancy Agreement entered into by the parties.
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: • Damage to carpet. • Damage to Buxus hedge.
The parties agree that at the end of the tenancy cordial or a similar liquid was accidentally spilt on the carpet. There is no suggestion that any damage was caused intentionally. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is liable.
The landlord seeks $570.31 as compensation for carpet treatment carried out by [Carpet cleaning company]. The charge includes travel.
The tenant said that she also arranged for commercial carpet cleaners to attend. The cleaners said that the carpet was so old that the stain couldn’t be removed.
In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to check to see whether the stain could be removed, before getting new carpet. The claim is proven, but is limited to $550.00 being the insurance excess.
The landlord seeks compensation for replacement carpet. The landlord has provided a quote from [Carpet company] dated 28 June 2023 to replace the carpet. The quote is for $3,313.81. The quote notes that “on inspection the carpet is estimated to be 10 years old”.
The landlord is insured. Even taking depreciation into account, the claim for the insurance excess of $550.00 is reasonable and that claim is proven.
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 has claimed for damage caused to a hedge consisting of Buxus hedge plants. The parties agreed that the damage had been accidentally caused by the tenant’s removal contractors. The landlord provided a quote from [Garden maintenance company] for the removal of the 20 damaged plants, new plants and replanting at a cost of $1,253.99.
The tenant said that there was a degree of contributory negligence by the landlord who she said allowed trees to become overgrown so that damage by the truck was inevitable. The tenant accepted that she had not been present when the damage was done.
The landlord referred to post tenancy inspection photos which said showed that the trees were not substantially overgrown.
In this matter, I accept the landlord evidence that damage has been caused accidentally by the tenant. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I do not consider that there has been sufficient evidence provided to prove the claim of contributory negligence. The tenant is liable.
The tenant is responsible for the acts of her agents. I indicated at the hearing that the tenant may have a claim against her contractors for negligence, but that is a matter for her to consider.
The landlord is insured for tenant damage. The excess is $550.00 and the tenant is ordered to pay that sum to the landlord.
As [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression of the landlord details is ordered.
The tenant raised concerns for her privacy relating to domestic violence issues. In the circumstances, I do not consider that there is any public interest in the matter and suppression of the tenant details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4619929 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4619929 — Property damage

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