What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4684053?

The tribunal order states: Alix Chapman and Jamie Lawrence must pay Nkrs Property Investment Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4684053?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Handbasin: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4684053?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4684053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9610352-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4684053?

The tribunal order states: Alix Chapman and Jamie Lawrence must pay Nkrs Property Investment Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4684053?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Handbasin: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4684053?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4684053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9610352-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 San Bernadino Drive, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4684053 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4684053 — net $420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Handbasin	$400.00	Repairs: Handbasin
Filing Fee Reimbursement	$20.44	Filing Fee Reimbursement
Net award	$420.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$420.44

Order

Alix Chapman and Jamie Lawrence must pay Nkrs Property Investment Limited and Salah Soliman $420.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation 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.
The landlord and tenant agree that during the course of the tenancy a plastic handbasin at the property has developed a hole in it.
The landlord believes the hole has been caused by a cigarette burn. He has sought the opinion of a person at Mitre 10, and the opinion of an insurance assessor who the landlord says agree with him regarding the cause of the hole.
The tenants say the hole is the result of wear and tear. They say they don’t smoke and they don’t have friends who smoke and the hole wasn’t caused by anyone else so far as they know. They say the hole was caused by extremely hot water, make-up remover and soaps that they use. Having looked on-line, the tenants’ opinion is that the hole is the result of a “sink hole”, a manufacturing defect that occurs in the course of injection moulding. They have not provided any expert evidence that establishes how the basin was produced, nor any information that shows such defects in other basins, and neither party has provided a photo showing the basing at the beginning of the tenancy with the defect in it.
The landlord says the house is probably about ten years old. The tenants say the house is probably more like thirty years old. In my opinion having looked at photographs of the house, it is closer to thirty years old than ten years old. The one photograph provided of the basin shows it to be old and well worn. The tenants weren’t able to offer any explanation as to why after such an amount of time, the basin should suddenly fail in this way during their tenancy.
I am not persuaded that the damage is fair wear and tear. The damage is not like any defect I have seen on a plastic basin before, and it does look like a burn mark. I accept the landlord’s submission that the hole is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not convinced me that the hole has not been caused by a careless or intentional act.
The landlord has said the insurance company has charged him $1000.00 excess for the claim as they consider the damage to be intentional. The landlord also provided information that a plumber quoted $1600.00 to replace the vanity unit including the basin.
The vanity was an old one, and on the basis of information I have heard today, it is probably the best part of thirty years old.
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.
The amount ordered is proved.
Because Nkrs Property Investment Limited, Salah Soliman has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4684053 — net $420.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Handbasin	$400.00	Repairs: Handbasin
Filing Fee Reimbursement	$20.44	Filing Fee Reimbursement
Net award	$420.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$420.44

Order

Alix Chapman and Jamie Lawrence must pay Nkrs Property Investment Limited and Salah Soliman $420.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation 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.
The landlord and tenant agree that during the course of the tenancy a plastic handbasin at the property has developed a hole in it.
The landlord believes the hole has been caused by a cigarette burn. He has sought the opinion of a person at Mitre 10, and the opinion of an insurance assessor who the landlord says agree with him regarding the cause of the hole.
The tenants say the hole is the result of wear and tear. They say they don’t smoke and they don’t have friends who smoke and the hole wasn’t caused by anyone else so far as they know. They say the hole was caused by extremely hot water, make-up remover and soaps that they use. Having looked on-line, the tenants’ opinion is that the hole is the result of a “sink hole”, a manufacturing defect that occurs in the course of injection moulding. They have not provided any expert evidence that establishes how the basin was produced, nor any information that shows such defects in other basins, and neither party has provided a photo showing the basing at the beginning of the tenancy with the defect in it.
The landlord says the house is probably about ten years old. The tenants say the house is probably more like thirty years old. In my opinion having looked at photographs of the house, it is closer to thirty years old than ten years old. The one photograph provided of the basin shows it to be old and well worn. The tenants weren’t able to offer any explanation as to why after such an amount of time, the basin should suddenly fail in this way during their tenancy.
I am not persuaded that the damage is fair wear and tear. The damage is not like any defect I have seen on a plastic basin before, and it does look like a burn mark. I accept the landlord’s submission that the hole is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not convinced me that the hole has not been caused by a careless or intentional act.
The landlord has said the insurance company has charged him $1000.00 excess for the claim as they consider the damage to be intentional. The landlord also provided information that a plumber quoted $1600.00 to replace the vanity unit including the basin.
The vanity was an old one, and on the basis of information I have heard today, it is probably the best part of thirty years old.
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.
The amount ordered is proved.
Because Nkrs Property Investment Limited, Salah Soliman has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4684053 — Property damage at 5 San Bernadino Drive, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4684053 — Property damage at 5 San Bernadino Drive, Henderson, Auckland 0612

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions