What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4709022 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4709022?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4709022?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4709022?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10916635-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4709022 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4709022?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4709022?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4709022?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10916635-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4709022 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4709022. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for insurance excess relating to damage	$1,000.00		Compensation for insurance excess relating to damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord’s claim related to the tenancy of an apartment in central Auckland.
The tenancy began on 14 May 2020 and ended when the apartment was gutted by fire early in the morning of 2 July 2023. The sprinklers were activated, the building was evacuated, and Fire and Emergency NZ attended together with the Police. As at the date of the hearing the cause of the fire is yet to be determined. It was initially thought to have been caused by an electric scooter battery.
The landlord says that there was substantial damage at the apartment that was not caused by the fire. The damage (including the fire damage and consequent water damage) has been covered by the landlord’s insurer. However the landlord seeks to recover the insurance excess of $2,500 from the tenant on the basis that there was considerable damage present that was unrelated to the fire.

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 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 says that there was a substantial amount of damage present in the apartment that was not caused by the fire, as follows: a. The large sliding doors in the lounge had been dislodged from their railings and were leaning out onto the balcony; b. The lounge ceiling and wall had caved in; and c. The metal beam structure within the bedroom wall had been bent towards the lounge.
In support of their claim the landlord produced the following evidence: a. A routine inspection report from an inspection that took place on 8 June 2023 which records no damage and attaches photos of the apartment showing it to be in very good condition. b. Evidence that a handyman attended at the apartment on 26 June 2023 to fix unrelated items did not observe any damage on that date. c. A Police report recording the incident. d. The Incident Report dated 2 July 2023 by a Specialist Fire Investigator from Fire and Emergency NZ who attended the incident, which records that: “Crews forced entry into the room and found a small fire in the bedroom that had been extinguished by the sprinkler system...a large amount of damage was done in the apartment that was unrelated to the damage the fire could have caused”. e. Photographs of the damage showing damage as described by the landlord. f. A diagram of the apartment showing that the damage occurred in the lounge while the fire was located in the bedroom. g. An email from a Station Officer who attended the incident, dated 22 July 2024 stating: “...We/fenz at most may have broken the front door lock or door surround when I kicked the door in, the rest of the apartment we did not touch apart from removing the scooter to the outside courtyard. It was an absolute state the apartment and no way the fire or fenz caused that damage”
The tenant strongly denied causing the damage. He said that he had a friend staying over on the night of the fire and that the friend stayed at the apartment while he went out to a party. He said that there was no damage when he left and he does not see how the damage could possibly have occurred if it was not caused by the fire. He said that he arrived home the next morning and discovered what had happened.
The tenant produced the following evidence: a. photographs of the apartment which were taken from the landlord’s inspection report and were dated 25 June 2023 and a photo of his guest playing a VR game at he apartment on 26 June 2023 showing the wall to be intact and in good condition; and b. An email from his guest dated 21 August 2024 stating: “There was no damage to your apartment whatsoever when I went to bed. I was sleeping in the second bedroom/office. I woke up to the fire alarm and sprinkler and the apartment was filled with smoke. I quickly got up and went straight to your door to see if you were in there as I was unsure if you had returned from your night out, but I exited the apartment room pretty fast and made my way outside”
I find that the landlord has proved that the damage was caused during the tenancy. The damage was not present in June 2023 but was clearly present on 2 July 2023 as shown in the photos.
I do not consider that the tenant has disproved liability for the damage. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the damage was not caused by either the fire or the Fire and Emergency NZ when they attended.
I accept that the tenant may not have been home when the damage occurred but tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.

What compensation is the landlord entitled to?

The landlord’s agent advised that the cost of reinstating the apartment is likely to be over $50,000. The landlord’s claim for all of the damage has been accepted by their insurer who regard all the damage as being caused by one “event” as it occurred within a 72 hour period.
The landlord has applied an excess of $2,500 for water damage. In an email dated 2 October 2024 the landlord’s insurer explained why this excess had been applied to the claim:
The landlord has proved that the tenant is responsible for damage (which can only be intentional damage/vandalism) but has not claimed or proved that the tenant is responsible for the fire and consequent water damage caused by the sprinklers.
In my view the tenant should be responsible for the excess for intentional damage/vandalism that would have been applied if the fire and water damage had not also occurred. The relevant excess as set out in the policy document for such damage is $1,000 and I order compensation to the landlord in that amount.
The landlord has been the substantially successful party and accordingly I have refunded the filing fee. I have also made an order suppressing the tenant’s name pursuant to s95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4709022. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Compensation for insurance excess relating to damage	$1,000.00		Compensation for insurance excess relating to damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord’s claim related to the tenancy of an apartment in central Auckland.
The tenancy began on 14 May 2020 and ended when the apartment was gutted by fire early in the morning of 2 July 2023. The sprinklers were activated, the building was evacuated, and Fire and Emergency NZ attended together with the Police. As at the date of the hearing the cause of the fire is yet to be determined. It was initially thought to have been caused by an electric scooter battery.
The landlord says that there was substantial damage at the apartment that was not caused by the fire. The damage (including the fire damage and consequent water damage) has been covered by the landlord’s insurer. However the landlord seeks to recover the insurance excess of $2,500 from the tenant on the basis that there was considerable damage present that was unrelated to the fire.

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 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 says that there was a substantial amount of damage present in the apartment that was not caused by the fire, as follows: a. The large sliding doors in the lounge had been dislodged from their railings and were leaning out onto the balcony; b. The lounge ceiling and wall had caved in; and c. The metal beam structure within the bedroom wall had been bent towards the lounge.
In support of their claim the landlord produced the following evidence: a. A routine inspection report from an inspection that took place on 8 June 2023 which records no damage and attaches photos of the apartment showing it to be in very good condition. b. Evidence that a handyman attended at the apartment on 26 June 2023 to fix unrelated items did not observe any damage on that date. c. A Police report recording the incident. d. The Incident Report dated 2 July 2023 by a Specialist Fire Investigator from Fire and Emergency NZ who attended the incident, which records that: “Crews forced entry into the room and found a small fire in the bedroom that had been extinguished by the sprinkler system...a large amount of damage was done in the apartment that was unrelated to the damage the fire could have caused”. e. Photographs of the damage showing damage as described by the landlord. f. A diagram of the apartment showing that the damage occurred in the lounge while the fire was located in the bedroom. g. An email from a Station Officer who attended the incident, dated 22 July 2024 stating: “...We/fenz at most may have broken the front door lock or door surround when I kicked the door in, the rest of the apartment we did not touch apart from removing the scooter to the outside courtyard. It was an absolute state the apartment and no way the fire or fenz caused that damage”
The tenant strongly denied causing the damage. He said that he had a friend staying over on the night of the fire and that the friend stayed at the apartment while he went out to a party. He said that there was no damage when he left and he does not see how the damage could possibly have occurred if it was not caused by the fire. He said that he arrived home the next morning and discovered what had happened.
The tenant produced the following evidence: a. photographs of the apartment which were taken from the landlord’s inspection report and were dated 25 June 2023 and a photo of his guest playing a VR game at he apartment on 26 June 2023 showing the wall to be intact and in good condition; and b. An email from his guest dated 21 August 2024 stating: “There was no damage to your apartment whatsoever when I went to bed. I was sleeping in the second bedroom/office. I woke up to the fire alarm and sprinkler and the apartment was filled with smoke. I quickly got up and went straight to your door to see if you were in there as I was unsure if you had returned from your night out, but I exited the apartment room pretty fast and made my way outside”
I find that the landlord has proved that the damage was caused during the tenancy. The damage was not present in June 2023 but was clearly present on 2 July 2023 as shown in the photos.
I do not consider that the tenant has disproved liability for the damage. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the damage was not caused by either the fire or the Fire and Emergency NZ when they attended.
I accept that the tenant may not have been home when the damage occurred but tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.

What compensation is the landlord entitled to?

The landlord’s agent advised that the cost of reinstating the apartment is likely to be over $50,000. The landlord’s claim for all of the damage has been accepted by their insurer who regard all the damage as being caused by one “event” as it occurred within a 72 hour period.
The landlord has applied an excess of $2,500 for water damage. In an email dated 2 October 2024 the landlord’s insurer explained why this excess had been applied to the claim:
The landlord has proved that the tenant is responsible for damage (which can only be intentional damage/vandalism) but has not claimed or proved that the tenant is responsible for the fire and consequent water damage caused by the sprinklers.
In my view the tenant should be responsible for the excess for intentional damage/vandalism that would have been applied if the fire and water damage had not also occurred. The relevant excess as set out in the policy document for such damage is $1,000 and I order compensation to the landlord in that amount.
The landlord has been the substantially successful party and accordingly I have refunded the filing fee. I have also made an order suppressing the tenant’s name pursuant to s95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4709022 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4709022 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

What compensation is the landlord entitled to?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

What compensation is the landlord entitled to?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions