What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4658812?

The tribunal order states: Impala Kawana to pay Heather Gaye Mawby and Rickey James Mawby

How much money was awarded in case 4658812?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $13.39 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $153.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4658812?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4658812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9636326-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4658812?

The tribunal order states: Impala Kawana to pay Heather Gaye Mawby and Rickey James Mawby

How much money was awarded in case 4658812?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $13.39 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $153.78 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4658812?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4658812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9636326-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 McGowan Road, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4658812 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4658812 — net $187.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$153.78	Rubbish removal
Replacement toilet roll holder	$13.39	Replacement toilet roll holder
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$187.61
Bond	$900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$187.61

Order

Impala Kawana to pay Heather Gaye Mawby and Rickey James Mawby $187.61 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 (3775066-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Heather Gaye Mawby and Rickey James Mawby: $187.61 Impala Kawana: $712.39
All other claims are dismissed.

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 tenant waived her right to notice of the claims so that all matters could be decided today, and she would not have to come back for another hearing.

Did the tenant comply with her 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 (RTA).
The tenant agreed to the claim for rubbish removal. The amount ordered is proved.

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 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.
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.
There is a claim for a replacement toilet roll holder. The tenant said this was loose and it is possible she packed it by accident when she moved out. I find the tenant should pay for a replacement and the amount claimed is proved and allowed.
There is a claim for the insurance excess for repairs to the shower. The insurance excess is $550. The tenant said the damage happened when she slipped and leaned heavily on the wall. What the tenant has described is accidental damage. I find the tenant did not carelessly or intentionally damage the walls in the shower, which means she does not need to pay for the repair. The claim for the insurance excess is dismissed.
There is also a claim for around $730 for repairs to the back lawn after cars drove on the grass during winter. I have seen the photos and there is significant damage in three areas. The landlord said the neighbour told him a car raced in after a police chase. The neighbour did not give evidence as a witness. The landlord agreed in the hearing that the damage was done while the tenant was away.
The tenant said that while she was away one weekend some family members drove onto the back lawn in winter when it was like a big swamp. They got stuck and there was damage when they tried to pull the car out. The question I have to decide is whether the tenant should pay for damage done by someone else, when the tenant was not at home.
Section 41 RTA sets out the law explaining when tenants are responsible for damage by others. It states: (1) The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person ... who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (2) Where any person ... intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises.
The parties agree the tenant was not at home when the car drove onto the lawn, so section 41(2) RTA does not apply here.
Section 41(1) RTA only applies if the person driving the car was on the premises – which includes the back lawn - with the tenant’s permission. The tenant was not home when this happened, so it seems most likely to me that she did not give permission. The fact the person driving the car was a relation is irrelevant.
Section 49B(1) and (2) RTA states that tenants are also responsible for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence or which is careless damage. However, this only applies to anything done by a person they are responsible for under section 41 RTA.
I find tenant did not carelessly or intentionally damage the back lawn because she did not give her permission. This means she does not have to pay for the repair. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4658812 — net $187.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$153.78	Rubbish removal
Replacement toilet roll holder	$13.39	Replacement toilet roll holder
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$187.61
Bond	$900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$187.61

Order

Impala Kawana to pay Heather Gaye Mawby and Rickey James Mawby $187.61 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 (3775066-003) immediately apportioned as follows: Heather Gaye Mawby and Rickey James Mawby: $187.61 Impala Kawana: $712.39
All other claims are dismissed.

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 tenant waived her right to notice of the claims so that all matters could be decided today, and she would not have to come back for another hearing.

Did the tenant comply with her 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 (RTA).
The tenant agreed to the claim for rubbish removal. The amount ordered is proved.

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 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.
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.
There is a claim for a replacement toilet roll holder. The tenant said this was loose and it is possible she packed it by accident when she moved out. I find the tenant should pay for a replacement and the amount claimed is proved and allowed.
There is a claim for the insurance excess for repairs to the shower. The insurance excess is $550. The tenant said the damage happened when she slipped and leaned heavily on the wall. What the tenant has described is accidental damage. I find the tenant did not carelessly or intentionally damage the walls in the shower, which means she does not need to pay for the repair. The claim for the insurance excess is dismissed.
There is also a claim for around $730 for repairs to the back lawn after cars drove on the grass during winter. I have seen the photos and there is significant damage in three areas. The landlord said the neighbour told him a car raced in after a police chase. The neighbour did not give evidence as a witness. The landlord agreed in the hearing that the damage was done while the tenant was away.
The tenant said that while she was away one weekend some family members drove onto the back lawn in winter when it was like a big swamp. They got stuck and there was damage when they tried to pull the car out. The question I have to decide is whether the tenant should pay for damage done by someone else, when the tenant was not at home.
Section 41 RTA sets out the law explaining when tenants are responsible for damage by others. It states: (1) The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person ... who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (2) Where any person ... intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises.
The parties agree the tenant was not at home when the car drove onto the lawn, so section 41(2) RTA does not apply here.
Section 41(1) RTA only applies if the person driving the car was on the premises – which includes the back lawn - with the tenant’s permission. The tenant was not home when this happened, so it seems most likely to me that she did not give permission. The fact the person driving the car was a relation is irrelevant.
Section 49B(1) and (2) RTA states that tenants are also responsible for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence or which is careless damage. However, this only applies to anything done by a person they are responsible for under section 41 RTA.
I find tenant did not carelessly or intentionally damage the back lawn because she did not give her permission. This means she does not have to pay for the repair. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4658812 — Property damage at 13 McGowan Road, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4658812 — Property damage at 13 McGowan Road, Wainuiomata, Lower Hutt 5014

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with her 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