What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4691950 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay East Coast Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts As

How much money was awarded in case 4691950?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Repatch Gib On Wall: $487.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4691950?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4691950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9610822-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4691950 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay East Coast Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts As

How much money was awarded in case 4691950?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Repatch Gib On Wall: $487.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4691950?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4691950?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9610822-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3417 Whangara Road, Tolaga Bay, RD 3, Tolaga Bay 4073 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4691950 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4691950 — net $2,757.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace carpets - insurance excess – dining room	$1,500.00	Replace carpets - insurance excess – dining room
Repairs: repatch gib on wall	$487.00	Repairs: repatch gib on wall
Repairs: bedroom 4/gym room repairs to wall	$750.00	Repairs: bedroom 4/gym room repairs to wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,757.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,757.44

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay East Coast Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts As Agent For Wayne Harris $2,757.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Third and Ms Reeves both attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. [The tenant/s], and her daughter, both attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] daughter attended as her support person.
The landlord has applied for compensation/damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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: Wooden door damage in bedroom 3 a.A wooden door in bedroom 3 was damaged and was patched in the lower part of the door. The landlord provided photographs of this. [The tenant/s] said the damage was caused by her daughter’s partner fighting and there had been an attempt to repair the damage. From the photographs and evidence provided, I find this damage to be intentional on the part of the tenant, as she is also liable for the actions of anybody she permits to be on the premises. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any deprecation. The cap in section 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) does not apply here. The total cost to replace the door is $547.00. The tenant has part paid $214.85 towards this cost from the bond and so the landlord claims the balance of $332.15 for the door, which I find is a reasonable cost to replace the door. b.In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. c.The landlord’s evidence was the door was likely replaced in extension works done to the property in the early 1990s so it would be more than 30 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate wooden interior doors in a rental property have a lifespan of around 25-30 years. Accordingly, the door here is at the end of its lifespan based on depreciation guidelines. However, I also accept that the door was nevertheless in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy and should have had a few years left. On that basis, I have awarded the landlord approximately 15% of the replacement cost as compensation for the damage, which would be around $82.00 using the full replacement cost of $547.00. As the landlord has already received $214.85 in part payment for the door repair of $547.00 out of the bond, I consider the landlord has already received more than I would have awarded the landlord for the door replacement. Therefore, I do not award anything further to the landlord for the door replacement and this claim is dismissed. Repair to pin and nail hole in wall in gym room/bedroom d.The landlord said there were multiple pin and nail holes left in the wallpaper in the gym room/bedroom and that the tenant had a dartboard in there. The tenant said she was not aware of the pin and nail holes in there as they had used it as a storage room as mice used to get in there. The tenant did not dispute there were pin and nail holes. From the photographs and evidence provided, I find this damage to be intentional on the part of the tenant, as she is also liable for the actions of anybody she permits to be on the premises. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. The total cost of repair to the walls was estimated by the landlord to be $936.35. The tenant questioned why the landlord, in their estimate, needed to replace the gib and why they could not just get a plasterer to repair the small holes and believed the estimated cost of labour of 8 hours by the landlord to be high for this repair. The landlord did not claim for any painting. e.From the photographs provided by the landlord, there are numerous holes in the wallpaper, some of them larger than others. I find it reasonable that the landlord would need to replace the gib for that wall in the circumstances. The property manager said the owner would be doing the repairs himself. The estimate provided by the owner was a cost of $935.35, included costs for parts/materials, 8 hours of labour @ $85.00/hour, GST and mileage. I find the hourly rate of the owner for labour to be high, that there would be no need for the owner to charge GST on labour if he is doing the repair himself, and I consider mileage to the tenancy property is a business expense for the landlord, as they need to attend the property anyway. So, I also do not allow mileage. As such, I find $750.00 to be a reasonable cost for the owner to replace the gib on the wall with pin and nail holes himself, which includes parts and labour. As there is no painting claimed by the landlord, I do not have to depreciate this repair. Plastering repair in office room/bedroom 3 f. The landlord said that a hole in the wall in the office room/bedroom 3 was roughly repaired by the tenant and needed to be replastered properly. The tenant acknowledged the hole had been caused by her daughter’s partner, who had attempted to repair the hole. From the photographs and evidence provided, I find this damage to be intentional on the part of the tenant, as she is also liable for the actions of anybody she permits to be on the premises. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. The total cost of repair to replaster the covered over damage was estimated by the owner to be $550.34. The property manager said the owner would be doing this repair himself. The cost estimate provided included GST on labour, which the owner does not need to charge himself, so I do not allow for GST on labour. In the circumstances and based on the evidence, I find $487.00 to be a reasonable cost to repair this damage. There is no claim for painting the wall by the landlord, so I do not need to depreciate the amount of this repair. Carpet damage g.The landlord has claimed three insurance excess costs of $500.00 each, for a sub-total of $1,500.00 for damage to the carpets in the dining room, bedroom 1 and lounge2/large bedroom areas. The landlord said the insurance company regarded these as separate events and so charged separate excess amounts for each area. The landlord provided photographs of stains on the carpets in each of the areas claimed for, and a report from [cleaning company], carpet cleaners, to say they did not believe the stains in these carpets could be removed. The tenant said the stains in each area were caused by drinks spilled by the children living at the property, as well as from children’s activities playing with slime and make-up. She said they had tried to remove these stains themselves without success. From the evidence provided, I find this damage to be careless on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind the section 49B cap. h.Given I find this damage to the carpets to be careless by the tenant, the provisions of section 49B RTA apply and compensation would be limited to the 3 insurance excess amounts here, which come to $1,500.00. Lounge ranch slider i. The landlord said there was damage to the lounge ranch slider by the tenants, as there was a very small crack of the corner of one of the panes in the door and the rubber had come out of a part of the door. The landlord provided photographs, but it was difficult to see any damage in the photographs. It was acknowledged by the parties that the ranch slider doors were old and that the rubber parts often come out of the doors over time occasionally. I find the landlord did not reach the threshold of proving that it was more likely than not that this damage was caused by the tenant during the tenancy, due to insufficient evidence. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Smoke alarms j. The landlord claimed the tenant removed a smoke alarm and taped up two other smoke alarms at the property. There was no amount claimed by the landlord for this. The tenant said the smoke alarms would often go off on multiple occasions in many of the rooms and became problematic. The landlord said the tenant could be penalised for tampering with the smoke alarms but did not refer to a legislative provision for this. Tenants are responsible for replacing worn out batteries in smoke alarms pursuant to the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. I find the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove any claim in relation to the smoke alarms and so dismiss this claim.
The damage found above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because East Coast Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts As Agent For Wayne Harris has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request suppression. During the hearing, the tenant requested suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant said she has learned a big lesson from what happened in this tenancy and is embarrassed by the damage caused, much of it by her daughter’s partner or the young children. She has co-operated with the property manager in attempting to rectify the damage and has already agreed for the bond to be used to pay for other costs relating to the property, that were not the subject of these claims. The landlord said they consent to the tenant’s name being suppressed also. As such, I find the tenant’s interests here outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details are not to be published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4691950 — net $2,757.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace carpets - insurance excess – dining room	$1,500.00	Replace carpets - insurance excess – dining room
Repairs: repatch gib on wall	$487.00	Repairs: repatch gib on wall
Repairs: bedroom 4/gym room repairs to wall	$750.00	Repairs: bedroom 4/gym room repairs to wall
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,757.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,757.44

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay East Coast Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts As Agent For Wayne Harris $2,757.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Third and Ms Reeves both attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord. [The tenant/s], and her daughter, both attended the hearing. [The tenant/s] daughter attended as her support person.
The landlord has applied for compensation/damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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: Wooden door damage in bedroom 3 a.A wooden door in bedroom 3 was damaged and was patched in the lower part of the door. The landlord provided photographs of this. [The tenant/s] said the damage was caused by her daughter’s partner fighting and there had been an attempt to repair the damage. From the photographs and evidence provided, I find this damage to be intentional on the part of the tenant, as she is also liable for the actions of anybody she permits to be on the premises. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any deprecation. The cap in section 49B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) does not apply here. The total cost to replace the door is $547.00. The tenant has part paid $214.85 towards this cost from the bond and so the landlord claims the balance of $332.15 for the door, which I find is a reasonable cost to replace the door. b.In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred. c.The landlord’s evidence was the door was likely replaced in extension works done to the property in the early 1990s so it would be more than 30 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate wooden interior doors in a rental property have a lifespan of around 25-30 years. Accordingly, the door here is at the end of its lifespan based on depreciation guidelines. However, I also accept that the door was nevertheless in reasonable condition at the start of the tenancy and should have had a few years left. On that basis, I have awarded the landlord approximately 15% of the replacement cost as compensation for the damage, which would be around $82.00 using the full replacement cost of $547.00. As the landlord has already received $214.85 in part payment for the door repair of $547.00 out of the bond, I consider the landlord has already received more than I would have awarded the landlord for the door replacement. Therefore, I do not award anything further to the landlord for the door replacement and this claim is dismissed. Repair to pin and nail hole in wall in gym room/bedroom d.The landlord said there were multiple pin and nail holes left in the wallpaper in the gym room/bedroom and that the tenant had a dartboard in there. The tenant said she was not aware of the pin and nail holes in there as they had used it as a storage room as mice used to get in there. The tenant did not dispute there were pin and nail holes. From the photographs and evidence provided, I find this damage to be intentional on the part of the tenant, as she is also liable for the actions of anybody she permits to be on the premises. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. The total cost of repair to the walls was estimated by the landlord to be $936.35. The tenant questioned why the landlord, in their estimate, needed to replace the gib and why they could not just get a plasterer to repair the small holes and believed the estimated cost of labour of 8 hours by the landlord to be high for this repair. The landlord did not claim for any painting. e.From the photographs provided by the landlord, there are numerous holes in the wallpaper, some of them larger than others. I find it reasonable that the landlord would need to replace the gib for that wall in the circumstances. The property manager said the owner would be doing the repairs himself. The estimate provided by the owner was a cost of $935.35, included costs for parts/materials, 8 hours of labour @ $85.00/hour, GST and mileage. I find the hourly rate of the owner for labour to be high, that there would be no need for the owner to charge GST on labour if he is doing the repair himself, and I consider mileage to the tenancy property is a business expense for the landlord, as they need to attend the property anyway. So, I also do not allow mileage. As such, I find $750.00 to be a reasonable cost for the owner to replace the gib on the wall with pin and nail holes himself, which includes parts and labour. As there is no painting claimed by the landlord, I do not have to depreciate this repair. Plastering repair in office room/bedroom 3 f. The landlord said that a hole in the wall in the office room/bedroom 3 was roughly repaired by the tenant and needed to be replastered properly. The tenant acknowledged the hole had been caused by her daughter’s partner, who had attempted to repair the hole. From the photographs and evidence provided, I find this damage to be intentional on the part of the tenant, as she is also liable for the actions of anybody she permits to be on the premises. As the damage is intentional, the tenant is liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. The total cost of repair to replaster the covered over damage was estimated by the owner to be $550.34. The property manager said the owner would be doing this repair himself. The cost estimate provided included GST on labour, which the owner does not need to charge himself, so I do not allow for GST on labour. In the circumstances and based on the evidence, I find $487.00 to be a reasonable cost to repair this damage. There is no claim for painting the wall by the landlord, so I do not need to depreciate the amount of this repair. Carpet damage g.The landlord has claimed three insurance excess costs of $500.00 each, for a sub-total of $1,500.00 for damage to the carpets in the dining room, bedroom 1 and lounge2/large bedroom areas. The landlord said the insurance company regarded these as separate events and so charged separate excess amounts for each area. The landlord provided photographs of stains on the carpets in each of the areas claimed for, and a report from [cleaning company], carpet cleaners, to say they did not believe the stains in these carpets could be removed. The tenant said the stains in each area were caused by drinks spilled by the children living at the property, as well as from children’s activities playing with slime and make-up. She said they had tried to remove these stains themselves without success. From the evidence provided, I find this damage to be careless on the tenant’s part. As such, the tenant is liable for the cost, bearing in mind the section 49B cap. h.Given I find this damage to the carpets to be careless by the tenant, the provisions of section 49B RTA apply and compensation would be limited to the 3 insurance excess amounts here, which come to $1,500.00. Lounge ranch slider i. The landlord said there was damage to the lounge ranch slider by the tenants, as there was a very small crack of the corner of one of the panes in the door and the rubber had come out of a part of the door. The landlord provided photographs, but it was difficult to see any damage in the photographs. It was acknowledged by the parties that the ranch slider doors were old and that the rubber parts often come out of the doors over time occasionally. I find the landlord did not reach the threshold of proving that it was more likely than not that this damage was caused by the tenant during the tenancy, due to insufficient evidence. Therefore, this claim is dismissed. Smoke alarms j. The landlord claimed the tenant removed a smoke alarm and taped up two other smoke alarms at the property. There was no amount claimed by the landlord for this. The tenant said the smoke alarms would often go off on multiple occasions in many of the rooms and became problematic. The landlord said the tenant could be penalised for tampering with the smoke alarms but did not refer to a legislative provision for this. Tenants are responsible for replacing worn out batteries in smoke alarms pursuant to the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016. I find the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove any claim in relation to the smoke alarms and so dismiss this claim.
The damage found above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because East Coast Realty Limited Trading As Harcourts As Agent For Wayne Harris has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request suppression. During the hearing, the tenant requested suppression.
Section 95A(4) RTA provides the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenant said she has learned a big lesson from what happened in this tenancy and is embarrassed by the damage caused, much of it by her daughter’s partner or the young children. She has co-operated with the property manager in attempting to rectify the damage and has already agreed for the bond to be used to pay for other costs relating to the property, that were not the subject of these claims. The landlord said they consent to the tenant’s name being suppressed also. As such, I find the tenant’s interests here outweigh the public interest in publishing her name. Therefore, I order that the tenant’s name and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4691950 — Property damage at 3417 Whangara Road, Tolaga Bay, RD 3, Tolaga Bay 4073

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4691950 — Property damage at 3417 Whangara Road, Tolaga Bay, RD 3, Tolaga Bay 4073

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions