What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4652511 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 4652511?

Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4652511?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4652511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9400677-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4652511 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 4652511?

Property Damage: $287.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4652511?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4652511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9400677-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4652511 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4652511 — net $287.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$287.50	Repairs
Net award	$287.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$287.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Violet Whakaara must pay [The landlord/s] $287.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the toilet door.
The Landlord submitted that during a property inspection in May 2023, they discovered the door handle of the toilet was broken but no explanation was provided to the Landlord of how this happened. There was no ingoing inspection report provided as the Landlord took over management of the property in December 2022.
At the hearing, the Tenant admitted to breaking the handle but submitted that on the day that the handle was installed, the door handle locked accidentally from the inside. There was no key provided to the Tenants to open the door. The Tenant had to use the toilet and called the handyman that installed it. He told her to use a spoon to open the door but they did not know how to do this. Out of necessity, the Tenants partner forced the door open so the Tenant could use the toilet. The next day, the Tenant rang the handyman if he could repair the door again but the handyman advised her to ring the Property Manager for permission.
The Tenant submitted that when she moved into the property in September 2022, there was no door handle in the toilet door. There was only an empty round hole in the door. She submitted the Landlord sent someone to install a new door handle around May 2023.
The Landlord submitted they did not have any record of the Tenant contacting them when the door locked accidentally from the inside. The first time they were aware of the damaged door was when they attended the property inspection in May 2023.
The law states that the Tenant must notify the Landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises or of the need for any repairs. See section 40(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancy Act 1986.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant submitted that she contacted the Landlord’s handyman when the door locked itself from the inside but never the Landlord.
The Landlord provided an inspection report dated 17 February 2023 which shows a toilet door intact with no damage and a photo of the broken door handle in May 2023.
The Tenants stated that the door was missing a handle since the start of the tenancy however the photograph in February 2023 shows a handle.
The Tenant’s account is inconsistent with the evidence provided and the Tenant should have notified the Landlord of the damage immediately if the door was faulty.
Because of the inconsistency in the Tenants account and the Tenant’s failure to inform the landlord of the damage to the door, I am persuaded by the Landlords account that the door was damaged by the Tenant.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
As the Landlord has been wholly successful with their application, name suppression is granted to the Landlord. The Tenant has not requested name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4652511 — net $287.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$287.50	Repairs
Net award	$287.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$287.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Violet Whakaara must pay [The landlord/s] $287.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the toilet door.
The Landlord submitted that during a property inspection in May 2023, they discovered the door handle of the toilet was broken but no explanation was provided to the Landlord of how this happened. There was no ingoing inspection report provided as the Landlord took over management of the property in December 2022.
At the hearing, the Tenant admitted to breaking the handle but submitted that on the day that the handle was installed, the door handle locked accidentally from the inside. There was no key provided to the Tenants to open the door. The Tenant had to use the toilet and called the handyman that installed it. He told her to use a spoon to open the door but they did not know how to do this. Out of necessity, the Tenants partner forced the door open so the Tenant could use the toilet. The next day, the Tenant rang the handyman if he could repair the door again but the handyman advised her to ring the Property Manager for permission.
The Tenant submitted that when she moved into the property in September 2022, there was no door handle in the toilet door. There was only an empty round hole in the door. She submitted the Landlord sent someone to install a new door handle around May 2023.
The Landlord submitted they did not have any record of the Tenant contacting them when the door locked accidentally from the inside. The first time they were aware of the damaged door was when they attended the property inspection in May 2023.
The law states that the Tenant must notify the Landlord, as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises or of the need for any repairs. See section 40(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancy Act 1986.
In considering the evidence, the Tenant submitted that she contacted the Landlord’s handyman when the door locked itself from the inside but never the Landlord.
The Landlord provided an inspection report dated 17 February 2023 which shows a toilet door intact with no damage and a photo of the broken door handle in May 2023.
The Tenants stated that the door was missing a handle since the start of the tenancy however the photograph in February 2023 shows a handle.
The Tenant’s account is inconsistent with the evidence provided and the Tenant should have notified the Landlord of the damage immediately if the door was faulty.
Because of the inconsistency in the Tenants account and the Tenant’s failure to inform the landlord of the damage to the door, I am persuaded by the Landlords account that the door was damaged by the Tenant.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
As the Landlord has been wholly successful with their application, name suppression is granted to the Landlord. The Tenant has not requested name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4652511 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4652511 — 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