What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4638161 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,107.25 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4638161?

Compensation: Reimbursement: $235.75 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $241.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $391.00 awarded to landlord; Deck: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4638161?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4638161?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9864356-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4638161 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,107.25 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4638161?

Compensation: Reimbursement: $235.75 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $241.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $391.00 awarded to landlord; Deck: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4638161?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4638161?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9864356-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4638161 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4638161 — net $1,107.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Damaged gate post	$391.00		Repairs: Damaged gate post
Repairs: Bedroom damage	$241.50		Repairs: Bedroom damage
Repairs: Deck	$310.50		Repairs: Deck
Repairs: Insurance excess	$400.00		Repairs: Insurance excess
Compensation: Reimbursement		$235.75	Reimbursement
Total award	$1,343.00	$235.75
Net award	$1,107.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,107.25

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,107.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord must pay the bond of $1,492.75 to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended in person and the tenant attended via teleconference.
The tenant applied for reimbursement for repair costs and order against the landlord for the landlord’s unlawful entry and breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord made a cross-application seeking compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I deal with the tenant’s application first. The tenant’s application.
The tenancy was from 12 th April 2022 until 23 rd July 2023.
The tenant had incurred $235.75 when the tenant had to get the downstairs drain to be unblocked. The issue was apparently with the pipes themselves.
The tenant said that a reimbursement request had been made with the landlord previously but that the landlord never replied back to the tenant.
The landlord said that she did not receive the request but was happy to reimburse the tenant.
Therefore, by agreement, I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant $235.75 for the cost incurred for unblocking the pipes.
The tenant also sought an order to address the landlord having entered the property without giving 24-hours’ notice on one occasion.
The tenant said that the landlord was verbally aggressive and entered the grounds without consent when the tenant had left the property for work.
The landlord spoke to the tenant’s then-partner making accusatory claims of stealing items that the landlord had stored at the property.
Landlords do not need to give notice to come onto the property. However, landlords must not interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
If the landlord interferes with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises and there is a pattern amounting to harassment, then it becomes an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded.
However, as this was a one-off event, I find that it does not amount to harassment. There was no actual unlawful entry into the building. I decline to make any orders as a result.
Having dealt with the tenant’s application, I now deal with the landlord’s application. The landlord’s application
After the tenancy ended, the landlord found that there were damages to some areas of the premises.
By way of background, it is important to note that the landlord allowed the tenant to sublet the downstairs area to another couple. The subtenants occupied the premises downstairs and stayed on after the tenant had left.

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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. 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. 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 gate post, patched up bedroom wall, decking that had been stained without the approval of the landlord with two planks cut and replaced, damaged capping on back patio and scratches on the lounge flooring.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant accepted that she had plastered the bedroom wall and that her removal company has damaged the capping on the back patio area.
I find that someone present with the tenant’s permission has caused damage to the post carelessly, and that the scratches on the lounge flooring was also caused carelessly.
I find that the tenant’s subtenants has caused the back patio decking to be cut and stained given that it required time and effort for it to have become stained. The tenant denied staining it herself.
The amounts ordered above are proved. The insurance excess of $400.00 covered for both the capping on the back patio area and the lounge flooring scratches.
The landlord also sought insurance excess for material stolen from the grounds. The parties suspected the tenant’s ex-partner to be responsible for stealing the material.
However, there is no evidence that the ex-partner had actually stolen the material. They were left unsecured on the ground and neither party had any actual evidence against the ex-partner. This is a matter for the Police and the landlord can file a complaint to the Police about this.
As I do not find that there was any evidence of who had stolen the material, no orders are made against the tenant. Name suppression
At the request of the parties, name suppression is ordered on all identifying details. Filing fee reimbursement
As both parties were partially successful, I do not order for reimbursement of the filing fee either way. The parties are to bear their own costs for the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4638161 — net $1,107.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Damaged gate post	$391.00		Repairs: Damaged gate post
Repairs: Bedroom damage	$241.50		Repairs: Bedroom damage
Repairs: Deck	$310.50		Repairs: Deck
Repairs: Insurance excess	$400.00		Repairs: Insurance excess
Compensation: Reimbursement		$235.75	Reimbursement
Total award	$1,343.00	$235.75
Net award	$1,107.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,107.25

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,107.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The landlord must pay the bond of $1,492.75 to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord attended in person and the tenant attended via teleconference.
The tenant applied for reimbursement for repair costs and order against the landlord for the landlord’s unlawful entry and breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord made a cross-application seeking compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
I deal with the tenant’s application first. The tenant’s application.
The tenancy was from 12 th April 2022 until 23 rd July 2023.
The tenant had incurred $235.75 when the tenant had to get the downstairs drain to be unblocked. The issue was apparently with the pipes themselves.
The tenant said that a reimbursement request had been made with the landlord previously but that the landlord never replied back to the tenant.
The landlord said that she did not receive the request but was happy to reimburse the tenant.
Therefore, by agreement, I order the landlord to reimburse the tenant $235.75 for the cost incurred for unblocking the pipes.
The tenant also sought an order to address the landlord having entered the property without giving 24-hours’ notice on one occasion.
The tenant said that the landlord was verbally aggressive and entered the grounds without consent when the tenant had left the property for work.
The landlord spoke to the tenant’s then-partner making accusatory claims of stealing items that the landlord had stored at the property.
Landlords do not need to give notice to come onto the property. However, landlords must not interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.
If the landlord interferes with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises and there is a pattern amounting to harassment, then it becomes an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded.
However, as this was a one-off event, I find that it does not amount to harassment. There was no actual unlawful entry into the building. I decline to make any orders as a result.
Having dealt with the tenant’s application, I now deal with the landlord’s application. The landlord’s application
After the tenancy ended, the landlord found that there were damages to some areas of the premises.
By way of background, it is important to note that the landlord allowed the tenant to sublet the downstairs area to another couple. The subtenants occupied the premises downstairs and stayed on after the tenant had left.

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“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. 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. 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 gate post, patched up bedroom wall, decking that had been stained without the approval of the landlord with two planks cut and replaced, damaged capping on back patio and scratches on the lounge flooring.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant accepted that she had plastered the bedroom wall and that her removal company has damaged the capping on the back patio area.
I find that someone present with the tenant’s permission has caused damage to the post carelessly, and that the scratches on the lounge flooring was also caused carelessly.
I find that the tenant’s subtenants has caused the back patio decking to be cut and stained given that it required time and effort for it to have become stained. The tenant denied staining it herself.
The amounts ordered above are proved. The insurance excess of $400.00 covered for both the capping on the back patio area and the lounge flooring scratches.
The landlord also sought insurance excess for material stolen from the grounds. The parties suspected the tenant’s ex-partner to be responsible for stealing the material.
However, there is no evidence that the ex-partner had actually stolen the material. They were left unsecured on the ground and neither party had any actual evidence against the ex-partner. This is a matter for the Police and the landlord can file a complaint to the Police about this.
As I do not find that there was any evidence of who had stolen the material, no orders are made against the tenant. Name suppression
At the request of the parties, name suppression is ordered on all identifying details. Filing fee reimbursement
As both parties were partially successful, I do not order for reimbursement of the filing fee either way. The parties are to bear their own costs for the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4638161 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4638161 — 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