What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4680571 about?

The tribunal order states: Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For C & S Chen Katrina Jiang must

How much money was awarded in case 4680571?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4680571?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4680571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9918089-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4680571 about?

The tribunal order states: Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For C & S Chen Katrina Jiang must

How much money was awarded in case 4680571?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4680571?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4680571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9918089-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4680571 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4680571 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Bond	$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For C & S Chen Katrina Jiang must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the tenants immediately.

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 has made a cross application for refund of the full bond without deduction and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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.
On 24 October 2023, the tenant and her mother attended a hearing of these applications. No one from Impression Real Estate Ltd appeared at the hearing. On enquiry, the Tribunal was informed the property manager in charge of the landlord’s application for compensation was on leave, there was no one in the Company that could appear for it, and it requested an adjournment so that the property manager could appear when she was back from annual leave. The landlord also indicated that the property manager had expert evidence that would prove that the tenant was responsible for the broken balcony glass and should pay the insurance excess.
The tenant disproved liability for the damage by providing a video that was date stamped 10:49am on 31 July 2023, the day she moved out of the premises. The video clearly walked the viewer through all of the apartment, including the balcony, which was very much intact at that time. In addition, the tenant provided a receipt from the landlord’s receptionist that proves she returned both sets of keys to reception at 11am on 31 July 2023.
The tenant’s mother, [redacted], appeared in both the 24 October 2023 and today’s hearings. She had taken annual leave on both days to appear as a witness for her daughter. She attested to having cleaned the premises with her daughter on the 31 July 2023, to the balcony glass being intact at the time her and her daughter left the premises just prior to 11am on 31 July 2023 and to witnessing her daughter giving the keys back to the landlord at 11am on 31 July 2023.
The landlord has failed to provide any evidence that proves, on the balance of probabilities, the tenant caused the damage to the balcony during her tenancy and that the damage was caused by the tenant’s careless or intentional act or omission. Therefore, its claim for reimbursement of $1,000.00 for general damages is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to support its claim. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4680571 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Bond	$1,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

Impression Real Estate Limited As Agent For C & S Chen Katrina Jiang must pay [The tenant/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the tenants immediately.

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 has made a cross application for refund of the full bond without deduction and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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.
On 24 October 2023, the tenant and her mother attended a hearing of these applications. No one from Impression Real Estate Ltd appeared at the hearing. On enquiry, the Tribunal was informed the property manager in charge of the landlord’s application for compensation was on leave, there was no one in the Company that could appear for it, and it requested an adjournment so that the property manager could appear when she was back from annual leave. The landlord also indicated that the property manager had expert evidence that would prove that the tenant was responsible for the broken balcony glass and should pay the insurance excess.
The tenant disproved liability for the damage by providing a video that was date stamped 10:49am on 31 July 2023, the day she moved out of the premises. The video clearly walked the viewer through all of the apartment, including the balcony, which was very much intact at that time. In addition, the tenant provided a receipt from the landlord’s receptionist that proves she returned both sets of keys to reception at 11am on 31 July 2023.
The tenant’s mother, [redacted], appeared in both the 24 October 2023 and today’s hearings. She had taken annual leave on both days to appear as a witness for her daughter. She attested to having cleaned the premises with her daughter on the 31 July 2023, to the balcony glass being intact at the time her and her daughter left the premises just prior to 11am on 31 July 2023 and to witnessing her daughter giving the keys back to the landlord at 11am on 31 July 2023.
The landlord has failed to provide any evidence that proves, on the balance of probabilities, the tenant caused the damage to the balcony during her tenancy and that the damage was caused by the tenant’s careless or intentional act or omission. Therefore, its claim for reimbursement of $1,000.00 for general damages is dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to support its claim. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4680571 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4680571 — Tenancy dispute

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