What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677729 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,250.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4677729?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677729?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9687860-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4677729 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,250.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 4677729?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4677729?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4677729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9687860-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4677729 — Property damage

Reasons

The landlord has applied for the insurance excess after there was a fire in the kitchen at the tenancy premises. The house was badly damaged and the tenant and her children had to move out. The landlord’s insurer is paying for the repairs, less the excess. The landlord wants the tenant to pay the excess because the damage was careless. The question I have to decide is whether the tenant is responsible for the damage.

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.

There was no submission from the landlord that the damage was intentional.

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. The insurance excess is $1250 which is less than four weeks of rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

The tenant placed a bag of groceries on the ceramic hob. She must have knocked one of the knobs on. The tenant left the house in a hurry and the groceries caught fire. The landlord agreed that knocking one of the knobs onto an on position was accidental.

The landlord submitted that the tenant acted carelessly when she put the groceries on the hob. In reply, the tenant submitted that she has a very small kitchen with little bench space and she often puts the groceries on the hob as she unpacks them. She said she usually turns the hob off at the wall after using it. This time she forgot the turn the switch off.

I am not persuaded the tenant acted carelessly in putting groceries on the hob. The reality of many small kitchens is that every flat surface gets used. The tenant’s practice of turning the hob off at the wall means that flat surface would usually be safe to use. The tenant has never had a kitchen fire before.

On this particular day the tenant was not feeling well. She came home after shopping and started to unload the groceries. She realised part way through that it was time to take both children to the doctor. She raced out the door without checking the hob.

I have taken some time to decide if the act of leaving without checking the hob was careless, and I’m sorry this order took longer than anticipated. I am not persuaded the tenant’s actions on this particular day were careless. It seems most likely to me the fire was the result of an accident because the tenant has never had a kitchen fire before and her explanation about her day and how she left in a hurry were credible. Tenants do not have to pay for damage caused by an accident. The landlord’s claim is dismissed, and the bond is refunded to the tenant. I note the landlord will have to refund the money already paid towards the excess.

By discretion suppression is allowed for all parties.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,250.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord has applied for the insurance excess after there was a fire in the kitchen at the tenancy premises. The house was badly damaged and the tenant and her children had to move out. The landlord’s insurer is paying for the repairs, less the excess. The landlord wants the tenant to pay the excess because the damage was careless. The question I have to decide is whether the tenant is responsible for the damage.
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.
There was no submission from the landlord that the damage was intentional.
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. The insurance excess is $1250 which is less than four weeks of rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The tenant placed a bag of groceries on the ceramic hob. She must have knocked one of the knobs on. The tenant left the house in a hurry and the groceries caught fire. The landlord agreed that knocking one of the knobs onto an on position was accidental.
The landlord submitted that the tenant acted carelessly when she put the groceries on the hob. In reply, the tenant submitted that she has a very small kitchen with little bench space and she often puts the groceries on the hob as she unpacks them. She said she usually turns the hob off at the wall after using it. This time she forgot the turn the switch off.
I am not persuaded the tenant acted carelessly in putting groceries on the hob. The reality of many small kitchens is that every flat surface gets used. The tenant’s practice of turning the hob off at the wall means that flat surface would usually be safe to use. The tenant has never had a kitchen fire before.
On this particular day the tenant was not feeling well. She came home after shopping and started to unload the groceries. She realised part way through that it was time to take both children to the doctor. She raced out the door without checking the hob.
I have taken some time to decide if the act of leaving without checking the hob was careless, and I’m sorry this order took longer than anticipated. I am not persuaded the tenant’s actions on this particular day were careless. It seems most likely to me the fire was the result of an accident because the tenant has never had a kitchen fire before and her explanation about her day and how she left in a hurry were credible. Tenants do not have to pay for damage caused by an accident. The landlord’s claim is dismissed, and the bond is refunded to the tenant. I note the landlord will have to refund the money already paid towards the excess.
By discretion suppression is allowed for all parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677729 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4677729 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions