What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4717891 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,085.63 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4717891?

BC On-Charges: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Washer/Dryer: $205.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4717891?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4717891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10394652-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4717891 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,085.63 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4717891?

BC On-Charges: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Washer/Dryer: $205.19 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4717891?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4717891?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10394652-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4717891 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4717891 — net $1,085.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: washer/dryer	$205.19	Replace furnishings: washer/dryer
fire damage	$400.00	fire damage
BC on-charges	$460.00	BC on-charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,085.63
Bond	$1,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,085.63

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,085.63 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,085.63 [The tenant/s]: $434.37

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.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Fire damage to the apartment. b. Damage to the washing machine and dryer.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In relation to the fire damage, there are two claims, the first is for the insurance excess for the physical damage. The second is for the fire call out fee, charged to the Body Corporate and passed on to the landlord.
I received, following service of summons, information in relation to the fire from the New Zealand Police and Fire and Emergency New Zealand (“FENZ”) confirming their attendance at a fire in the premises on 29 March 2023. The occupant of the premises was removed, in an intoxicated state and treated by Ambulance staff. Police view is that there is no evidence that the fire was intentional, rather it would appear the occupant fell asleep while cooking and that was the cause of the fire.
I accept that this amounts to carelessness and the tenant is liable for the damage.
In relation to the washing machine and dryer, these were damaged by having wet clothing left in them for prolonged periods. The landlord’s evidence, accepted by the tenant, is that they required replacement as a result. 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 replacement cost of both appliances is $1436.35. Both appliances are 6 years old. The IRD depreciation tables indicate a useful life of 6-7 years. I have adopted a useful life of 7 years and reduced the award accordingly.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing Fee
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
The Landlord sought suppression of its name. As they have been substantially successful in their claim they are entitled to suppression.
In the present case, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be allowed as the tenant was not responsible for the actual damage (the premises was sub-tenanted, with consent of the landlord). Further, the occupant of the premises is not a party, but publication of the tenant’s name and the address would make it likely that the occupant would be identifiable. I am note, given the circumstances of this incident, and the notes from Police and FENZ, that the occupant appears to have vulnerabilities which may be exacerbated by publication of his details or identification of him via the tenant.
Accordingly, as order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4717891 — net $1,085.63 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: washer/dryer	$205.19	Replace furnishings: washer/dryer
fire damage	$400.00	fire damage
BC on-charges	$460.00	BC on-charges
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,085.63
Bond	$1,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,085.63

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,085.63 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,085.63 [The tenant/s]: $434.37

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.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Fire damage to the apartment. b. Damage to the washing machine and dryer.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
In relation to the fire damage, there are two claims, the first is for the insurance excess for the physical damage. The second is for the fire call out fee, charged to the Body Corporate and passed on to the landlord.
I received, following service of summons, information in relation to the fire from the New Zealand Police and Fire and Emergency New Zealand (“FENZ”) confirming their attendance at a fire in the premises on 29 March 2023. The occupant of the premises was removed, in an intoxicated state and treated by Ambulance staff. Police view is that there is no evidence that the fire was intentional, rather it would appear the occupant fell asleep while cooking and that was the cause of the fire.
I accept that this amounts to carelessness and the tenant is liable for the damage.
In relation to the washing machine and dryer, these were damaged by having wet clothing left in them for prolonged periods. The landlord’s evidence, accepted by the tenant, is that they required replacement as a result. 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 replacement cost of both appliances is $1436.35. Both appliances are 6 years old. The IRD depreciation tables indicate a useful life of 6-7 years. I have adopted a useful life of 7 years and reduced the award accordingly.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing Fee
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
The Landlord sought suppression of its name. As they have been substantially successful in their claim they are entitled to suppression.
In the present case, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be allowed as the tenant was not responsible for the actual damage (the premises was sub-tenanted, with consent of the landlord). Further, the occupant of the premises is not a party, but publication of the tenant’s name and the address would make it likely that the occupant would be identifiable. I am note, given the circumstances of this incident, and the notes from Police and FENZ, that the occupant appears to have vulnerabilities which may be exacerbated by publication of his details or identification of him via the tenant.
Accordingly, as order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4717891 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4717891 — Property damage

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