What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4728231 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenant address must not

How much money was awarded in case 4728231?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4728231?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4728231?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10245783-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4728231 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenant address must not

How much money was awarded in case 4728231?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4728231?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4728231?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10245783-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4728231 — Mould & damp

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details including the tenant address must not be published.
The landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

The parties attended the hearing.
The Tribunal added the sub-tenants as parties to assist its determination of the landlord’s claims.
The landlord applies for compensation for the cost of items that she says the tenants and/or the subtenants damaged.
The tenants and subtenants deny liability. Introduction
The premises is the downstairs floor of the landlord’s own two-story home.
The landlord is houseproud. She has carefully furnished the house with quality furniture, fittings, and furnishings.
In recent years, the landlord has shared part of her home with tenants. She has a manual of home care rules that tenants should follow, such as not using scourers on the stainless steel bench and using coasters for placing hot drinks on the table.
The landlord had to go overseas for urgent personal reasons from about 20 April 2023. At the time, she had been sharing the house with another tenant, who looked after the home carefully.
When this person moved out, the landlord was still overseas. However, the tenancy was arranged with the help of the landlord’s agent.
The tenants’ tenancy began on 3 July 2023 and was for a fixed term to 13 August 2023, which was later extended.
The tenants previously owned their own home but were having marital problems. They lived at the premises separately from each other on different dates. The tenants themselves moved out after a couple of months. However, from 1 September 2023 to 14 October 2023, the tenant’s sublet the premises to the female tenant’s brother and his partner.
The tenants were working professionals. The male subtenant was a working professional. The tenants and the male subtenant mostly worked long hours and did not generally spend much time at home. The male subtenant’s partner likely spent more time in the premises than he did. The subtenants’ tenancy ended on 14 October 2023.
The landlord returned to New Zealand a few days later. She says: I had arrived back from a long-haul flight early in the morning...I walked in and wanted to cook something for myself. What I initially saw set alarm bells ringing. I understand the odd bump, scratch and a different cleaning level may have presented, but over the following days more damage was seen, and this was reported to [the tenant].
The landlord recorded damage to many fixtures and chattels.
The tenants say they caused no damage greater than wear and tear from ordinary, prudent use of the premises. They say, landlord’s agent inspected the premises after the tenants moved out and after the subtenants moved out and the agent did not raise any significant issues with them.
The issue for determination is whether the tenants or the subtenants are liable for any of the damage at the premises.

Are the tenants or the subtenants liable for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims for alleged damage to a dining table, stainless steel bench and hob, granite bench, fridge, kitchen blind, side table, coffee table, curtains and sheers, bathroom shower, frying pans, pepper grinder, toaster, and a handbasin. Legal principles
To succeed in a damage claim, the 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. 1
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). 2
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). 3 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 4
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. 5
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. 6 1 See RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 2 RTA, s 49B(3)(a). 3 RTA, s 49B(3)(b). 4 RTA, s 49B(3A)(a). 5 RTA, s 49B(1). 6 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. Dining table
The landlord claims the respondents damaged the dining table by failing to use heat mats as directed in the house rules manual.
The table is Italian-made and has a wooden veneer. The landlord bought the table about eight years ago at a cost of about $3,000.00.
The landlord produced pre-tenancy photographs, including of the dining table, which she says her agent took the day before the tenants’ tenancy began. The tenants dispute the date the photographs were taken. I have assumed however that the photographs were taken on 2 July 2023, the day before the tenancy began.
The post-tenancy photographs include some very close-up images of several residue marks left perhaps by damp from the bottom of glasses or cups placed directly on the table surface, rather than on a coaster.
The pre-tenancy photographs of the table are taken too far away for any effective comparison, bar one photograph that is relatively close-up. In this photograph, what may be some of the same damage as shown in some of the post-tenancy photographs can be seen. In this particular photograph, there are some placemats on the table that obscure part of the table.
The landlord was confident that there was no damage shown in the pre-tenancy photographs.
In my view the damage shown in the post-tenancy photographs is fair wear and tear. It is minor cosmetic damage. The one reasonably comparable pre-tenancy photograph shows some pre-existing cosmetic damage. I am not able to determine on the balance of probabilities what damage was pre-existing and what, if any, is new.
I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the dining table was damaged beyond fair wear and tear during the tenancy. Dryer
The sub-tenants admitted to using a faulty dryer they had been told not to use. The landlord submitted this demonstrated a propensity to disregard the landlord’s directions about how the home should be cared for.
The respondents say they otherwise sensibly followed the landlord’s instructions. They dryer was not turning itself off so could be used with care. They only used the dryer once when they urgently needed to dry some sheets. Other damage
The landlord believes the bench has been scratched, probably by the respondents cleaning it with a scourer.
The tenants deny they used a scourer or misused the bench and stove surfaces.
The landlord’s pre- and post- tenancy photographs do not provide a like-for-like comparison. The pre-tenancy photographs are taken on angle from a distance, the post-tenancy photographs (and a video) are very close-up.
The landlord has not proved damage more than fair wear and tear during the tenancy.
Similarly for the granite bench, fridge, kitchen blind, resin side table, coffee table, toaster, and handbasin, the evidence does not establish damage beyond fair wear and tear during the tenancy. Sheer curtains
The landlord’s photographs and videos establish that several sheer curtains withing the premises were damaged by mould. The landlord says she intends to have them professionally cleaned at a cost of about $1,200.00. Evidently, she has not had them cleaned yet even though it has been about eight months since the tenancy ended.
The tenants say they aired the premises when they could, and used the dehumidifier as directed. The landlord says she has never had a problem with the sheers becoming mouldy, so an inference is to be drawn that the respondents did not adequately air the premises to the standard of a reasonably prudent tenant.
The tenants were frequently out. They closed all the windows when they were out because they did not have security stays. The airflow in the house may have been compromised by the upper level of the house being closed off.
The tenants and the subtenant who came to court presented as mature, responsible people who knew how to look after a home, by airing it for example. Auckland is a humid, damp city for much of the year. This tenancy was during the wetter months of the year, and those months were typically rainy. Although the sheer curtains were mould-damaged, most of the rest of the premises was relatively free of mould.
In these circumstances, the curtains could easily have become mouldy despite the tenants and subtenants regularly airing the premises and using the dehumidifier.
Weighing all the evidence, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondents were reasonably prudent in the way they aired the house. Conclusion
It follows from my findings above that the landlord’s claim must be dismissed. Non-publication
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or other circumstances.
The tenants and subtenants seek non-publication. They have been wholly successful in the proceedings. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or justified by their conduct or any other circumstances.
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 the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published.
The landlord’s claim was properly brought. She is inexperienced in Tribunal proceedings but submitted organised submissions and evidence. The sheer curtains claim may have been decided differently if it had been brought as a failing to leave the premises reasonably clean claim. 7 The facts are unexceptional. The facts and decision can be published. Knowing the parties’ identities would serve no significant public interest.
Having regard to the parties interests and the to the public interest, it is appropriate to order non-publication of the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4728231 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4728231 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants or the subtenants liable for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants or the subtenants liable for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions