What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4675591 about?

The tribunal order states: Etevise Lata must pay [The landlord/s] $676.28 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4675591?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,594.40 awarded to landlord; Hole in gib in wardrobe & bathroom d…: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $601.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675591?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9820988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4675591 about?

The tribunal order states: Etevise Lata must pay [The landlord/s] $676.28 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4675591?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,594.40 awarded to landlord; Hole in gib in wardrobe & bathroom d…: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $601.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4675591?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4675591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9820988-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4675591 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4675591 — net $676.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,594.40	Rent arrears
Water rates	$601.44	Water rates
Replace furnishings: Replacement of cracked vanity top	$500.00	Replace furnishings: Replacement of cracked vanity top
Repairs: Hole in gib in wardrobe & bathroom door	$460.00	Repairs: Hole in gib in wardrobe & bathroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$676.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$676.28

Etevise Lata must pay [The landlord/s] $676.28 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$2,594.40 Water rates$601.44 Replace furnishings: Replacement of cracked vanity top$500.00 Repairs: Hole in gib in wardrobe & bathroom door$460.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,176.28 Bond$3,500.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$676.28

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

[The landlord’s representative/s] appeared as the agent of the landlord. [The landlord’s representative/s] appeared in person.

Ms Lata requested to appear via phone just before the morning hearing. I granted Ms Lata’s application so the hearing can proceed as scheduled.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 21 August 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Ms Lata did not dispute owing $2,594.40 in rent and $601.44 in water arrears.

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: a. Vanity top (upstairs ensuite bathroom); b. A hole in gib in the wardrobe; and c. Bathroom door. Vanity top

[The landlord’s representative/s] claimed that the vanity was not damaged at the beginning of the tenancy, and he submitted a pre-tenancy photo dated 10 th August 2022, as evidence.

Ms. Lata, on the other hand, said that she did not know how the crack occurred since she and her two children only used the vanity for light activities like washing and brushing teeth.

[The landlord’s representative/s] submitted that the damage might have been caused by a heavy object being dropped on the vanity, but Ms. Lata denied this, stating that she had no such heavy objects in the bathroom. She further argued that the crack was fair wear and tear and that she did not keep any heavy items in the bathroom.

Although Ms. Lata disputed causing the damage during her tenancy, she admitted in her evidence that: “I honestly don't [know]. I mean, it might have been deliberate, but I don't have heavy materials enough in that bathroom to crack that vanity. Unless my kids picked up a scale and it dropped into the vanity, I don't know. That's probably the heaviest thing in my bathroom was.”

[The landlord’s representative/s] did not suggest that the damage was done intentionally. Instead, he believes that the crack was caused carelessly.

In my view, Ms. Lata's own evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that the crack was caused by her children, who picked up a scale and accidentally dropped it on the vanity.

While Ms. Lata did not witness this event, her evidence suggests that she cannot exclude the possibility of it happening.

Based on the pre-tenancy photo, which showed no crack on the vanity, I conclude that the crack occurred during Ms. Lata's tenancy and by the permission of those residing on the property."

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

Accordingly, I find Ms Lata is liable for the insurance excess of $500. A hole in gib in the wardrobe

Ms Lata did not dispute that her son had stood on the gib to reach for his clothes in the wardrobe. She believed it was a careless act on his part, rather than intentional.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

I find Ms Lata is liable for the damage. Bathroom door

Ms Lata did not deny that she had to force the bathroom door open to release her son who had locked himself inside. While it is true that she carelessly damaged the door in the process, I do not consider that her actions were intentional or that she had any intention of causing damage to the door. Her only intention was to free her son from the bathroom.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

I find Ms Lata is liable 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. Filing fee

Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression

Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded in proceedings I grant the suppression application.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4675591 — net $676.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,594.40	Rent arrears
Water rates	$601.44	Water rates
Replace furnishings: Replacement of cracked vanity top	$500.00	Replace furnishings: Replacement of cracked vanity top
Repairs: Hole in gib in wardrobe & bathroom door	$460.00	Repairs: Hole in gib in wardrobe & bathroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$676.28
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$676.28