What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4727647 about?

The tribunal order states: Halima Al Mohammed to pay [The landlord/s] $2,225.11 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4727647?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,068.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,720.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $112.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $440.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4727647?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4727647?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10170021-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4727647 about?

The tribunal order states: Halima Al Mohammed to pay [The landlord/s] $2,225.11 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4727647?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,068.57 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,720.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $112.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $440.74 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4727647?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4727647?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10170021-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

23 Jasper Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4727647 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4727647 — net $2,225.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs for careless damage: Kitchen, Curtains	$2,720.00		Repairs for careless damage: Kitchen, Curtains
Repairs for intentional damage: Washing line	$112.50		Repairs for intentional damage: Washing line
Water rates	$440.74		Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent arrears to 20 August 2023		$1,068.57	Rent arrears to 20 August 2023
Total award	$3,293.68	$1,068.57
Net award	$2,225.11
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,225.11

Order

Halima Al Mohammed to pay [The landlord/s] $2,225.11 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,225.11 Halima Al Mohammed: $494.89

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing; the respondent did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation, damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Service
There is a question as to whether or not the respondent has been sufficiently served in this case.
The application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy so the usual service rules no longer apply.
The application must be served either personally on the tenant, on someone over the age of 16 living at address where the tenant now lives, or by post to an address provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made. See section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A personal service report is on file stating that personal service was attempted but not made on 21/02/2024, 20/02/2024 and 12/03/2024.
However, subsequent to the application being filed on 31 October 2023, the respondent and the applicant both attended a mediation hearing on 30 November 2023. The tenant therefore had adequately notice up to this point.
At the mediation hearing it appears updated addresses and email addresses were exchanged and these are on file. I am satisfied therefore, that effective service has been made on the respondent by virtue of two current email addresses which are on file.
The applicant this afternoon stated that he had been talking with the respondent’s representative Mr Faisal, immediately prior to the hearing, and had been assured that the tenant had been served the documents for today’s hearing.
If this is not the case however, the respondent will have good cause to make an application for a rehearing.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 20 August 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount of water rates owing at the end of the tenancy is $440.74.

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(4) 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. Careless damage
Prior to the tenancy beginning, the kitchen in the premises was clean and serviceable but showing some signs of wear and aging. Photographs the landlord provided show cupboard doors with edges beginning to bubble from the expansion of the MDF composite material they are made from, and some shelves completely lacking the protective sealing-strip.
One year later, at the end of the tenancy, the landlord’s photographs show a kitchen in need of replacement: cupboard doors and sides of some of the cabinetry are exploded and cracked and the kickboards are similarly cracked beyond repair.
When asked whether he considered the damage to be intentional or careless, the landlord stated: “I do not believe intentional; could be accidental.”
The landlord provided a letter from the tenant dated 20/02/2024 which explains that the damage resulted from the kitchen being flooded after one of her young children climbed onto the kitchen bench and left the kitchen tap running without realising that the drain was partially blocked by food.
I accept the landlord’s claim that the damage has been caused by careless use during the tenancy.
The landlord provided a quote of $11,880.00 for replacement of the kitchen and said he was seeking 60% of the amount.
By the time MDF kitchen cupboard doors begin to show signs of exploding I consider the kitchen to be well into its serviceable life. I award 33% of the replacement cost of the kitchen which amounts to $3,920.40.
The landlord provided photographs of stains on a curtain and a loose tape at the back of another curtain. The landlord is seeking $1,014.71 for replacement curtains.
I am not persuaded there was significant damage to the curtains and I award an amount of $100.00 for careless damage.
The landlord is claiming $162.00 for a heat pump remote which was not working at the end of the tenancy. No information has been provided as to why the remote was not working (no report, no photos), and therefore I am unable to find it proved that the problem is more than fair wear and tear, or not a manufacturing fault with the remote.
A piece of wallpaper a little smaller than the size of an A3 piece of paper has been torn off the wall in one of the rooms and the landlord is seeking $750.00 for insurance excess for this damage.
No information was given about when the room was last decorated. It appears from the photographs the wallpaper is very old and the room is in need of redecorating. I do not accept that a simple repair to this damage would warrant an insurance claim or an award for which $750.00 is the excess.
In these circumstances I award an amount of $100.00 for a simple repair or repaint due to careless damage.
In one of the rooms there was a wall light at either end of a window. One of these has been broken. The landlord has claimed for replacement of both lights. I make an award of $57.00 for one light broken carelessly.
At the beginning of the tenancy the washing line was approximately six-years old and in perfect working order. At the end of the tenancy, the washing line frame is broken in several places and all the wires are broken. The washing line is not repairable. The landlord believes the damage has been caused by the tenant’s children playing on it. Replacement cost is $300.00. The washing line is lightweight and has a depreciation life span of eight years. I consider the damage to be intentional and award $112.50.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4727647 — net $2,225.11 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs for careless damage: Kitchen, Curtains	$2,720.00		Repairs for careless damage: Kitchen, Curtains
Repairs for intentional damage: Washing line	$112.50		Repairs for intentional damage: Washing line
Water rates	$440.74		Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent arrears to 20 August 2023		$1,068.57	Rent arrears to 20 August 2023
Total award	$3,293.68	$1,068.57
Net award	$2,225.11
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,225.11

Order

Halima Al Mohammed to pay [The landlord/s] $2,225.11 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $2,225.11 Halima Al Mohammed: $494.89

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing; the respondent did not.
The landlord has applied for compensation, damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Service
There is a question as to whether or not the respondent has been sufficiently served in this case.
The application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy so the usual service rules no longer apply.
The application must be served either personally on the tenant, on someone over the age of 16 living at address where the tenant now lives, or by post to an address provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made. See section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A personal service report is on file stating that personal service was attempted but not made on 21/02/2024, 20/02/2024 and 12/03/2024.
However, subsequent to the application being filed on 31 October 2023, the respondent and the applicant both attended a mediation hearing on 30 November 2023. The tenant therefore had adequately notice up to this point.
At the mediation hearing it appears updated addresses and email addresses were exchanged and these are on file. I am satisfied therefore, that effective service has been made on the respondent by virtue of two current email addresses which are on file.
The applicant this afternoon stated that he had been talking with the respondent’s representative Mr Faisal, immediately prior to the hearing, and had been assured that the tenant had been served the documents for today’s hearing.
If this is not the case however, the respondent will have good cause to make an application for a rehearing.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 20 August 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount of water rates owing at the end of the tenancy is $440.74.

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(4) 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. Careless damage
Prior to the tenancy beginning, the kitchen in the premises was clean and serviceable but showing some signs of wear and aging. Photographs the landlord provided show cupboard doors with edges beginning to bubble from the expansion of the MDF composite material they are made from, and some shelves completely lacking the protective sealing-strip.
One year later, at the end of the tenancy, the landlord’s photographs show a kitchen in need of replacement: cupboard doors and sides of some of the cabinetry are exploded and cracked and the kickboards are similarly cracked beyond repair.
When asked whether he considered the damage to be intentional or careless, the landlord stated: “I do not believe intentional; could be accidental.”
The landlord provided a letter from the tenant dated 20/02/2024 which explains that the damage resulted from the kitchen being flooded after one of her young children climbed onto the kitchen bench and left the kitchen tap running without realising that the drain was partially blocked by food.
I accept the landlord’s claim that the damage has been caused by careless use during the tenancy.
The landlord provided a quote of $11,880.00 for replacement of the kitchen and said he was seeking 60% of the amount.
By the time MDF kitchen cupboard doors begin to show signs of exploding I consider the kitchen to be well into its serviceable life. I award 33% of the replacement cost of the kitchen which amounts to $3,920.40.
The landlord provided photographs of stains on a curtain and a loose tape at the back of another curtain. The landlord is seeking $1,014.71 for replacement curtains.
I am not persuaded there was significant damage to the curtains and I award an amount of $100.00 for careless damage.
The landlord is claiming $162.00 for a heat pump remote which was not working at the end of the tenancy. No information has been provided as to why the remote was not working (no report, no photos), and therefore I am unable to find it proved that the problem is more than fair wear and tear, or not a manufacturing fault with the remote.
A piece of wallpaper a little smaller than the size of an A3 piece of paper has been torn off the wall in one of the rooms and the landlord is seeking $750.00 for insurance excess for this damage.
No information was given about when the room was last decorated. It appears from the photographs the wallpaper is very old and the room is in need of redecorating. I do not accept that a simple repair to this damage would warrant an insurance claim or an award for which $750.00 is the excess.
In these circumstances I award an amount of $100.00 for a simple repair or repaint due to careless damage.
In one of the rooms there was a wall light at either end of a window. One of these has been broken. The landlord has claimed for replacement of both lights. I make an award of $57.00 for one light broken carelessly.
At the beginning of the tenancy the washing line was approximately six-years old and in perfect working order. At the end of the tenancy, the washing line frame is broken in several places and all the wires are broken. The washing line is not repairable. The landlord believes the damage has been caused by the tenant’s children playing on it. Replacement cost is $300.00. The washing line is lightweight and has a depreciation life span of eight years. I consider the damage to be intentional and award $112.50.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4727647 — Property damage at 23 Jasper Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4727647 — Property damage at 23 Jasper Avenue, Mount Roskill, Auckland 1041

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

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

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions