What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4660770 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4660770?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4660770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9674807-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4660770 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4660770?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4660770?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9674807-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

258 Whirinaki Road, Eskdale, RD 2, Napier 4182 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4660770 — Leaks

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The landlord claims compensation of $4,929.00 for the cost of repairs to the laundry floor.

I note that the agreement represents the landlord as having insurance cover for the premises with a claims excess of $550.00. There being no suggestion that the damage was intentional, in the absence of contrary evidence, the tenant’s liability would accordingly be limited to the amount of the excess (see s.49B(3)).

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.

Photographs provided in evidence show significant underfloor damage in the laundry at the end of the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear.

The extent of the damage does not appear consistent with the landlord’s allegation that it was caused by the tenant having omitted to ensure there was a washer in the hose where connected to her washing machine.

The tenancy began in October 2022. The tenant’s evidence is that in November 2022 she noticed softness in the laundry floor when moving a refrigerator to that part of the house. She notified the landlord.

Shortly after cyclone Gabrielle, the property manager arranged for a temporary patch to be put on the affected area of the floor to ensure there was no risk from floorboards giving way.

The tenant says that she continued to experience issues with a leak from under the laundry tub which was a fixture in the premises. She says a bucket needed to be put under the tub to catch the drips, which only occurred when the tap from the laundry tub to the washing machine was turned on. She says that as a result, she always made sure the water supply to the washing machine was turned off whenever the machine was not in use. She says she also replaced the hose from the tub to the washing machine to make sure the problem was not being caused by her.

She also says that due to extended absences from the property and the availability of other laundry facilities, the washing machine in the laundry was very rarely used.

Given the apparent discrepancy between the extent of the damage for which the landlord is seeking repair costs and the landlord’s explanation of the cause, and having heard the tenants evidence about how she experienced and responded to the issue: a. I do not find it proved by the landlord that the damage occurred during the tenancy; and b. had it been, I find it proved by the tenant that she did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.

The application is accordingly dismissed.

Order

The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims compensation of $4,929.00 for the cost of repairs to the laundry floor.
I note that the agreement represents the landlord as having insurance cover for the premises with a claims excess of $550.00. There being no suggestion that the damage was intentional, in the absence of contrary evidence, the tenant’s liability would accordingly be limited to the amount of the excess (see s.49B(3)).

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.
Photographs provided in evidence show significant underfloor damage in the laundry at the end of the tenancy. It is more than fair wear and tear.
The extent of the damage does not appear consistent with the landlord’s allegation that it was caused by the tenant having omitted to ensure there was a washer in the hose where connected to her washing machine.
The tenancy began in October 2022. The tenant’s evidence is that in November 2022 she noticed softness in the laundry floor when moving a refrigerator to that part of the house. She notified the landlord.
Shortly after cyclone Gabrielle, the property manager arranged for a temporary patch to be put on the affected area of the floor to ensure there was no risk from floorboards giving way.
The tenant says that she continued to experience issues with a leak from under the laundry tub which was a fixture in the premises. She says a bucket needed to be put under the tub to catch the drips, which only occurred when the tap from the laundry tub to the washing machine was turned on. She says that as a result, she always made sure the water supply to the washing machine was turned off whenever the machine was not in use. She says she also replaced the hose from the tub to the washing machine to make sure the problem was not being caused by her.
She also says that due to extended absences from the property and the availability of other laundry facilities, the washing machine in the laundry was very rarely used.
Given the apparent discrepancy between the extent of the damage for which the landlord is seeking repair costs and the landlord’s explanation of the cause, and having heard the tenants evidence about how she experienced and responded to the issue: a. I do not find it proved by the landlord that the damage occurred during the tenancy; and b. had it been, I find it proved by the tenant that she did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
The application is accordingly dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4660770 — Leaks at 258 Whirinaki Road, Eskdale, RD 2, Napier 4182

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4660770 — Leaks at 258 Whirinaki Road, Eskdale, RD 2, Napier 4182

At a glance

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

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