What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4731812 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $405.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to

How much money was awarded in case 4731812?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $439.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $820.27 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $135.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4731812?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4731812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9782636-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4731812 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $405.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to

How much money was awarded in case 4731812?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $439.87 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $820.27 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $135.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4731812?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4731812?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9782636-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4731812 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4731812 — net $1,010.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 April 2023	$135.00	Rent arrears to 26 April 2023
Damage to doors	$439.87	Damage to doors
Damage to CCTV camera	$820.27	Damage to CCTV camera
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,010.58
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,010.58

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenancy commenced on 13 August 2023 and was periodic. The agreement allowed the tenant to sublet the property to a family member who was at the time under eighteen (The “subtenant”). The subtenant resided at the property until the tenant gave notice and the tenancy ended on 26 April 2023.

The property is a room in a four-bedroom two story house. There are three bedrooms upstairs and one downstairs. The downstairs room has its own bathroom and toilet. Of the three rooms upstairs, one is occupied by the subtenant, another by family members of the landlord, and the remaining room by an unrelated mature male in their forties.

The landlord has tenancy agreements with two tenants. Both tenant’s have exclusive use of their own room and share the facilities. Although this is an excluded tenancy under section 5(1)(n) of the Act, the parties agreed in writing that the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) would apply. There has been no challenge to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. This is not a boarding house tenancy.

It appears that the tenancy was managed by a property manager who ceased to be the landlord’s agent at the end of the tenancy. The landlord themselves have brought these proceedings. The application was made on 06 November 2023, some 6 months after the end of the tenancy.

The landlords’ claims are that the tenant is liable for rent arrears of $135.00, damage to the door to the subtenant’s room, and the wardrobe door inside the room, and for damage to a CCTV camera system installed at the property during the tenancy. The landlord also seeks refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”)

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which show the amount owing at the end of the tenancy to be $135.00.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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. This includes subtenants. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).

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) of the Act.

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) of the Act. 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) of the Act.

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) of the Act.

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.

In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.

In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Doors

The landlord has produced a photograph showing damage to the outside of the door to the room occupied by the subtenant, which has a hole in it, and a photograph of the wardrobe door which has three holes. The pre tenancy inspection report dated 13 August 2022, which has been signed by both parties, does not record any damage to these doors. The landlord discovered the damage at the end of the tenancy.

I am satisfied that more likely than not the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant does not appear to dispute this fact. The landlord submits that the damage is consistent with having been caused by an intentional act, citing that during the tenancy the subtenant had been unhappy with the landlord. Having viewed the photographs, I am satisfied the damage was likely intentional.

The landlord arranged for a quote to fix the doors. The landlord states that the tradesperson who attended and gave the quote was of the opinion that the doors could not be repaired and suggested replacement at a cost of $586.50, which the landlord accepted.

The tenant challenges the amount claimed, stating that their partner is a tradesperson and that the doors could have been repaired, as opposed to replaced, for a lesser amount. The tenant claims that they asked the then property manager if an end of tenancy inspection, which would have identified the damage, could be arranged prior to the end of the tenancy, with the anticipation that any issues could be addressed. Regrettably this did not occur. The tenant states that they were unaware of the damage until June 2023, when they received the invoice.

As the tenancy had ended at the time the damage was discovered the landlord was not obliged to offer the tenant the ability to re-enter and remedy the matter. The doors concerned are likely original. The landlord states the property was built in the late 1970’s early 1980’s. This is consistent with the photographs. On that basis, although in a reasonable condition, the doors were over forty years old at the start of the tenancy and showing signs of wear and tear commensurate with their age. The landlord submits that any betterment has been minimal as the new doors do not match the ones replaced nor others at the property. Any compensation awarded by the Tribunal must be reasonable. In this case I reduce the amount claimed by 25% for betterment and award the landlord $439.87. CCTV camera system

Following concerns raised by the other tenants about the number of vehicles visiting the property, on or about 13 March 2023, the landlord installed security cameras to the outside of the property covering the driveway and stairs. There is no counterclaim made by the tenant that this interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the subtenant, nor any evidence of any objection being raised at the material time.

The landlord has produced a photograph taken by a neighbour showing a male, whom the landlord states is the subtenant, standing on a chair removing a camera. The landlord states each of the three cameras installed was removed and that the control box had been pulled by its cord through an opening in the window of the room in which it was housed.

The landlord states that the property manager advised the tenant that if the system was returned by the subtenant that no action would be taken. The tenant does not dispute this fact. The landlord states that the cameras were returned but not the control unit, thus rendering the system unusable. The landlord has produced an invoice showing that the system cost $820. 27.

I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and the result of an intentional act. As stated there has been no counterclaim that the installation of the cameras potentially breached the subtenant’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, and I must therefore put that to one side. The amount claimed is awarded in full. Costs

Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression

Both parties seek name suppression

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.

Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.

The subtenant is under the age of eighteen. Identifying the tenant may indirectly disclose the identity of the subtenant. I am satisfied that this is sufficient grounds on which to exercise the Tribunal’s discretion in section 95A (4) and suppress the name of the tenant.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4731812 — net $1,010.58 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 April 2023	$135.00	Rent arrears to 26 April 2023
Damage to doors	$439.87	Damage to doors
Damage to CCTV camera	$820.27	Damage to CCTV camera
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,010.58
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,010.58

Both parties attended the hearing.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which show the amount owing at the end of the tenancy to be $135.00.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. This includes subtenants. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.

Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression

Both parties seek name suppression

The landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4731812 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4731812 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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 rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions