What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4723693?

The tribunal order states: Simon Matthew Tubb and Christy Jean-Anne Munro to pay Compass Property

How much money was awarded in case 4723693?

Water Rates: $62.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4723693?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4723693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9824684-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4723693?

The tribunal order states: Simon Matthew Tubb and Christy Jean-Anne Munro to pay Compass Property

How much money was awarded in case 4723693?

Water Rates: $62.29 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4723693?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4723693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9824684-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Ringo Lane, Te Kauwhata, Te Kauwhata 3710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4723693 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4723693 — net $62.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$62.29	Water rates
Net award	$62.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$62.29

Order

Simon Matthew Tubb and Christy Jean-Anne Munro to pay Compass Property Management Limited As Agent For Dong-Wan Auh $62.29 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties joined the hearing via phone. Ms. Jeremic represented the company while Mr. Tubb and Ms. Munro attended as tenants.
The landlord has applied for water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 16 October 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoice which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $61.29.
Mr Tubb stated that the correct amount for the water rates is $62.29, not $61.29. He is willing to pay the correct amount.
The landlord's request for payment should not be taken as a negative reflection on Mr Tubb as a tenant.

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 dispute between the parties revolves around whether Mr Tubb is responsible for the damage caused to the window. There is no dispute about the fact that the window was damaged during the tenancy. The matter that needs to be resolved is whether the damage was caused carelessly or accidentally. Mr Tubb is liable for the damage if the damage to the window was caused carelessly. This is because Mr. Tubb hired Mr. Knight, the lawnmower, to tidy up the lawn before vacating the property.
The burden of proof lies with Mr Tubb to satisfy me based on the balance of probabilities. Mr Tubb’s case
Mr Tubb submitted that on October 16, during his end of tenancy clean-up, a contractor he hired for lawn mowing accidentally flicked a small stone with the mower, which ended up shattering the glass on the sliding door window. The contractor had been maintaining the lawns on the property for the whole duration of his tenancy and had been to the property around 20 times.
Mr Knight, the contractor, said in his statement that he did a pre-inspection walk around and checked for stones and debris before starting the job. He had the mower on the lowest power setting. The stone that caused the damage was small and was hidden under the grass. It was unexpected that such a small stone could cause the glass to shatter.
Upon learning of the damage to the window, Mr Tubb immediately informed Ms Jeremic of the damage. Mr Tubb submitted that it was not malicious and purely accidental damage while providing care to the property.
Mr Tubb was of the view that it is the landlord's responsibility and part of their insurance to cover accidental damages like this. The contractor and him firmly believe that it was accidental and there was no carelessness involved.

Was the damage caused by the lawnmower carelessly or accidentally?

Ms Jeremic’s case is that there were stones on the ground and Mr Knight should have been more careful.
Ms Jeremic is correct on this point. However, how careful is careful? What if you can’t identify the potential risk?
I say this because Mr Knight was a trusted contractor and an experienced lawnmower who had been mowing the same property no less than 20 times without any incident. Unfortunately, on his last visit, a small stone of an unknown size, hidden under the grass, flicked up and tapped the window, resulting in the shattering of the sliding door's window.
In my view, this unfortunate event was an accident. An event neither party would want to see happening.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application for compensation for damage to the window is dismissed. Filing fee
I decline to reimburse the filing fee as the landlord was unsuccessful in her application for compensation.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4723693 — net $62.29 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$62.29	Water rates
Net award	$62.29
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$62.29

Order

Simon Matthew Tubb and Christy Jean-Anne Munro to pay Compass Property Management Limited As Agent For Dong-Wan Auh $62.29 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties joined the hearing via phone. Ms. Jeremic represented the company while Mr. Tubb and Ms. Munro attended as tenants.
The landlord has applied for water arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 16 October 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoice which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $61.29.
Mr Tubb stated that the correct amount for the water rates is $62.29, not $61.29. He is willing to pay the correct amount.
The landlord's request for payment should not be taken as a negative reflection on Mr Tubb as a tenant.

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 dispute between the parties revolves around whether Mr Tubb is responsible for the damage caused to the window. There is no dispute about the fact that the window was damaged during the tenancy. The matter that needs to be resolved is whether the damage was caused carelessly or accidentally. Mr Tubb is liable for the damage if the damage to the window was caused carelessly. This is because Mr. Tubb hired Mr. Knight, the lawnmower, to tidy up the lawn before vacating the property.
The burden of proof lies with Mr Tubb to satisfy me based on the balance of probabilities. Mr Tubb’s case
Mr Tubb submitted that on October 16, during his end of tenancy clean-up, a contractor he hired for lawn mowing accidentally flicked a small stone with the mower, which ended up shattering the glass on the sliding door window. The contractor had been maintaining the lawns on the property for the whole duration of his tenancy and had been to the property around 20 times.
Mr Knight, the contractor, said in his statement that he did a pre-inspection walk around and checked for stones and debris before starting the job. He had the mower on the lowest power setting. The stone that caused the damage was small and was hidden under the grass. It was unexpected that such a small stone could cause the glass to shatter.
Upon learning of the damage to the window, Mr Tubb immediately informed Ms Jeremic of the damage. Mr Tubb submitted that it was not malicious and purely accidental damage while providing care to the property.
Mr Tubb was of the view that it is the landlord's responsibility and part of their insurance to cover accidental damages like this. The contractor and him firmly believe that it was accidental and there was no carelessness involved.

Was the damage caused by the lawnmower carelessly or accidentally?

Ms Jeremic’s case is that there were stones on the ground and Mr Knight should have been more careful.
Ms Jeremic is correct on this point. However, how careful is careful? What if you can’t identify the potential risk?
I say this because Mr Knight was a trusted contractor and an experienced lawnmower who had been mowing the same property no less than 20 times without any incident. Unfortunately, on his last visit, a small stone of an unknown size, hidden under the grass, flicked up and tapped the window, resulting in the shattering of the sliding door's window.
In my view, this unfortunate event was an accident. An event neither party would want to see happening.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application for compensation for damage to the window is dismissed. Filing fee
I decline to reimburse the filing fee as the landlord was unsuccessful in her application for compensation.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4723693 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Ringo Lane, Te Kauwhata, Te Kauwhata 3710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4723693 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Ringo Lane, Te Kauwhata, Te Kauwhata 3710

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the damage caused by the lawnmower carelessly or accidentally?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was the damage caused by the lawnmower carelessly or accidentally?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions