What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4650195 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties, and

How much money was awarded in case 4650195?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,128.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $113.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4650195?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4650195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9739110-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4650195 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties, and

How much money was awarded in case 4650195?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,128.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $113.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4650195?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4650195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9739110-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4650195 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4650195 — net $781.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: (ceiling damage and repair	$3,128.00	Repairs: (ceiling damage and repair
Water rates: (1 to 30 June 2023	$113.44	Water rates: (1 to 30 June 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$781.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$781.88

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the Landlords immediately.
Ameya Desai and Amruta Desai must pay the landlords $781.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlords made a cross application for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The matters were heard together.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 30 July 2023. The landlords provided a water rates invoice which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, specifically $113.44 for the period 1 to 30 July 2023.
The amount owing was not disputed by the tenant.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants left the premises reasonably clean and tidy by doing a clean themselves, then engaging a cleaner to do a deeper clean and hiring a rug doctor to remove stains from the carpet, such as the metal stain on the lounge carpet after the landlords provided them with a list of cleaning requirements if they were to receive the full bond back. The tenants agreed to ensure these cleaning tasks were completed.
In their counter claim, the tenants claimed $423.00 of costs for the deep clean they undertook and the hiring of the rug doctor. They claimed that the premises were in a reasonably clean and tidy condition prior to the deep clean and they should not have been put to that additional expense. I declined to award the amount sought as the carpet stains required deep cleaning and the majority of the other cleaning items on the landlord’s list were fair and reasonable.
The tenants claim for reimbursement of this cost was dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenants moved out of the premises on 23 July 2023. They engaged a contractor to come and move their washing machine to their new home. The contractor and the tenants checked that the taps and value were shut after the washing machine had been moved. The tenants gave evidence that there was no leak when they did their post washing machine removal check under the sink. They state that there were no visible leaks at that time.
On 24 July 2023, the tenants cleaned the premises thoroughly. At this time, they wiped inside all cupboards and cleaned all surfaces and gave evidence that they did not see any leaks in the laundry or in the level of the house below the laundry room.
On 25 July 2023, the landlords went to the premises with a property manager to obtain a rental appraisal. They state that they also did not witness any leaks in the laundry or in the level of the house below the laundry. The same day, the tenants contacted the landlord to ask what further cleaning may be required for them to have their full bond refunded. The landlord provided them with a list that included: a. the carpet needing a deep clean to remove the stains; b. the rangehood filters to be cleaned in the dishwasher on a hot cycle to remove the fat levels that had accumulated; c. the rangehood requiring a clean inside after the filters had been removed to clean out the accumulated fat; d. marks and fly droppings to be cleaned off the ceilings, walls, doors, heat pump, lights, curtains; e. toilet, shower door, shower drain to be cleaned; f. kitchen and pantry to be cleaned; g. oven tray to be returned; and h. bins put out for collection.
On 27 July 2023, the tenants had a professional cleaner come and undertake the work listed at a cost of 423.00. On that day, the tenants noticed that there were some drops of water coming from the light fitting in the ceiling immediately below the laundry sink. They called the landlords to notify them of this leak.
The landlords called a plumber who has provided an expert opinion that the value under the laundry sink was not shut off properly when the washing machine was removed and stated that there was in his expert opinion no fault with the value or any other issue other than the valve not being shut off fully. The landlords informed the tenants of this. They did not agree that they had failed to shut the valve off properly.
On 30 July 2023, the tenancy ended and an exit inspection carried out.
To get the premises ready to be relet, the landlords hired a contractor to fix the damage caused by the leak. The contractor found that there had been a slow leak that had gone down the wall and pooled in the ceiling of the floor below causing damage to the gib and dripping through the light fitting. He repaired the damage to the ceiling and painted it.
The landlords contacted their insurer, AMI, to make a claim for the damage. They were informed that they only had $1,500.00 cover for this type of damage and their excess was $1,200.00. Further, it would take a few months for the claim to be assessed and a repairer of AMI’s choice to come and undertake the repairs. This made the insurance option not economically viable for the landlords.
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.
The tenants deny that they did not close off the valve that caused the damage to the ceiling. They provided evidence from their internet searches that list reasons why faucets turn on themselves and claim that Citizens Advice Bureau told them that the leak probably resulted from water pressure build up in the pipe that led to the slow leak. Further, the leakage was from pipe above the bulb because of pressure and not from the valve. There was no expert plumber evidence provided to support these claims/defences. I prefer the expert evidence of the plumber who came to inspect the leak on 27 July 2023, who shut off the valve and the leak stopped immediately. It had not leaked further by the time the contractor came in to fix the ceiling. The water had absorbed into the gib board and no fresh water was present.
The tenants also claimed that the landlords would have noticed the ceiling leak when they were showing the property manager around on 25 July 2023 and that the tenants would have seen the leak on 24 July 2023 when they were at the premises cleaning. They claim that the 27 July 2023 was the first time they noticed the leak, 4 days after they had moved the washing machine. It is probable that the leak was slow and took time to make its way down the wall and into the ceiling cavity below and once the gib had absorbed what it could the rest of the water came through the light fitting.
On the balance of probabilities, I find that the tenants failed to turn off the valve fully and that a slow leak ensued and was not picked up until the slow leak had already been pooling in the ceiling cavity for 4 days. I accept that neither the landlords nor the tenants looked under the sink to check for potential leaks until 27 July 2023 when the damage was so obvious that it was picked up by the tenants.
The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage to the ceiling.
The amount ordered is proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlords also sought compensation for $180.38 for replacing the rangehood filters that they claim were still full of fat build up even after being put through the dishwasher. The tenants had put them through the dishwasher and the photographic evidence does not support that the filters were in a worse state than what could be expected from the fair wear and tear of daily use during several tenancies over the past few years. They were not damaged and were still usable and did not appear to contain heavy amounts of fat. The claim was not proven as the tenants proved their defence of fair wear and tear which I accepted based on the evidence provided. Filing Fee
Because the landlords have wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4650195 — net $781.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: (ceiling damage and repair	$3,128.00	Repairs: (ceiling damage and repair
Water rates: (1 to 30 June 2023	$113.44	Water rates: (1 to 30 June 2023
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$781.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$781.88

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the Landlords immediately.
Ameya Desai and Amruta Desai must pay the landlords $781.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlords made a cross application for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The matters were heard together.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 30 July 2023. The landlords provided a water rates invoice which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, specifically $113.44 for the period 1 to 30 July 2023.
The amount owing was not disputed by the tenant.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants left the premises reasonably clean and tidy by doing a clean themselves, then engaging a cleaner to do a deeper clean and hiring a rug doctor to remove stains from the carpet, such as the metal stain on the lounge carpet after the landlords provided them with a list of cleaning requirements if they were to receive the full bond back. The tenants agreed to ensure these cleaning tasks were completed.
In their counter claim, the tenants claimed $423.00 of costs for the deep clean they undertook and the hiring of the rug doctor. They claimed that the premises were in a reasonably clean and tidy condition prior to the deep clean and they should not have been put to that additional expense. I declined to award the amount sought as the carpet stains required deep cleaning and the majority of the other cleaning items on the landlord’s list were fair and reasonable.
The tenants claim for reimbursement of this cost was dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The tenants moved out of the premises on 23 July 2023. They engaged a contractor to come and move their washing machine to their new home. The contractor and the tenants checked that the taps and value were shut after the washing machine had been moved. The tenants gave evidence that there was no leak when they did their post washing machine removal check under the sink. They state that there were no visible leaks at that time.
On 24 July 2023, the tenants cleaned the premises thoroughly. At this time, they wiped inside all cupboards and cleaned all surfaces and gave evidence that they did not see any leaks in the laundry or in the level of the house below the laundry room.
On 25 July 2023, the landlords went to the premises with a property manager to obtain a rental appraisal. They state that they also did not witness any leaks in the laundry or in the level of the house below the laundry. The same day, the tenants contacted the landlord to ask what further cleaning may be required for them to have their full bond refunded. The landlord provided them with a list that included: a. the carpet needing a deep clean to remove the stains; b. the rangehood filters to be cleaned in the dishwasher on a hot cycle to remove the fat levels that had accumulated; c. the rangehood requiring a clean inside after the filters had been removed to clean out the accumulated fat; d. marks and fly droppings to be cleaned off the ceilings, walls, doors, heat pump, lights, curtains; e. toilet, shower door, shower drain to be cleaned; f. kitchen and pantry to be cleaned; g. oven tray to be returned; and h. bins put out for collection.
On 27 July 2023, the tenants had a professional cleaner come and undertake the work listed at a cost of 423.00. On that day, the tenants noticed that there were some drops of water coming from the light fitting in the ceiling immediately below the laundry sink. They called the landlords to notify them of this leak.
The landlords called a plumber who has provided an expert opinion that the value under the laundry sink was not shut off properly when the washing machine was removed and stated that there was in his expert opinion no fault with the value or any other issue other than the valve not being shut off fully. The landlords informed the tenants of this. They did not agree that they had failed to shut the valve off properly.
On 30 July 2023, the tenancy ended and an exit inspection carried out.
To get the premises ready to be relet, the landlords hired a contractor to fix the damage caused by the leak. The contractor found that there had been a slow leak that had gone down the wall and pooled in the ceiling of the floor below causing damage to the gib and dripping through the light fitting. He repaired the damage to the ceiling and painted it.
The landlords contacted their insurer, AMI, to make a claim for the damage. They were informed that they only had $1,500.00 cover for this type of damage and their excess was $1,200.00. Further, it would take a few months for the claim to be assessed and a repairer of AMI’s choice to come and undertake the repairs. This made the insurance option not economically viable for the landlords.
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.
The tenants deny that they did not close off the valve that caused the damage to the ceiling. They provided evidence from their internet searches that list reasons why faucets turn on themselves and claim that Citizens Advice Bureau told them that the leak probably resulted from water pressure build up in the pipe that led to the slow leak. Further, the leakage was from pipe above the bulb because of pressure and not from the valve. There was no expert plumber evidence provided to support these claims/defences. I prefer the expert evidence of the plumber who came to inspect the leak on 27 July 2023, who shut off the valve and the leak stopped immediately. It had not leaked further by the time the contractor came in to fix the ceiling. The water had absorbed into the gib board and no fresh water was present.
The tenants also claimed that the landlords would have noticed the ceiling leak when they were showing the property manager around on 25 July 2023 and that the tenants would have seen the leak on 24 July 2023 when they were at the premises cleaning. They claim that the 27 July 2023 was the first time they noticed the leak, 4 days after they had moved the washing machine. It is probable that the leak was slow and took time to make its way down the wall and into the ceiling cavity below and once the gib had absorbed what it could the rest of the water came through the light fitting.
On the balance of probabilities, I find that the tenants failed to turn off the valve fully and that a slow leak ensued and was not picked up until the slow leak had already been pooling in the ceiling cavity for 4 days. I accept that neither the landlords nor the tenants looked under the sink to check for potential leaks until 27 July 2023 when the damage was so obvious that it was picked up by the tenants.
The tenants have not disproved liability for the damage to the ceiling.
The amount ordered is proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlords also sought compensation for $180.38 for replacing the rangehood filters that they claim were still full of fat build up even after being put through the dishwasher. The tenants had put them through the dishwasher and the photographic evidence does not support that the filters were in a worse state than what could be expected from the fair wear and tear of daily use during several tenancies over the past few years. They were not damaged and were still usable and did not appear to contain heavy amounts of fat. The claim was not proven as the tenants proved their defence of fair wear and tear which I accepted based on the evidence provided. Filing Fee
Because the landlords have wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4650195 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4650195 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions