What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4733315 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4733315?

Balance Of Security Deposit: $552.01 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4733315?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4733315?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9857802-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4733315 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4733315?

Balance Of Security Deposit: $552.01 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4733315?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4733315?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9857802-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4733315 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4733315 — net $552.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Balance of security deposit	$552.01	Balance of security deposit
Net award	$552.01
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$552.01

Order

The tenant application is dismissed.
The landlord is ordered to pay $552.01 to the tenant immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this hearing on 19 January 2024.
The essential facts in this matter are not in issue.
The tenant says that during the tenancy she was cooking in the kitchen.
A bottle of cooking oil slipped from her grasp and fell onto a glass topped cook top. The glass top was damaged. The damage was relatively minor.
The parties agree that repairs to the glass cook top will cost $647.99.
The tenant has lodged $1,200.00 with the landlord to cover the potential costs of the damage. The sum of $1,200.00 was arrived at by the parties, as this is the amount of the excess on the landlord’s insurance policy.
The tenant wishes to have the full $1200.00 returned to her as she says that the damage was caused accidentally and as a result, she is not liable for the damage.
The landlord says that the damage was caused carelessly and that the tenant is therefore responsible for the costs of the repair as they are less than the landlord insurance excess.
Liability for damage that is caused during a tenancy depends upon how and when it was caused.
Firstly, the landlord must prove that it happened during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. I have no difficulty in finding that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear.
Once that is established, then it is up to the tenant to prove that they did not intentionally or carelessly cause the damage to avoid liability.
Careless damage is damage that is caused by an inadvertent lack of reasonable care. Careless damage is limited to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess (if covered), or the amount of four weeks rent; whichever the lesser.
Intentional damage is damage done on purpose or where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. The issue of intentional damage is not of relevance to this enquiry.
Accidental damage, where there is no tenant liability, is damage that is greater than fair wear and tear but could not have reasonably been prevented.
There is no assistance with the definition of “careless damage“ in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) or higher court decisions.
The following is of assistance in considering the issue;
“Its usual meaning is the lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought... Also heedless or thoughtless, and can cover a situation of inadvertent lack of care. The standard of care is the standard of an ordinary careful person. An ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions against every foreseeable risk, but only against those risks that are reasonably likely to happen.” See Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850.
“Was the tenant exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances?” See Mercier v Smith Dunedin TT 228/93, 14 December 1993 (upheld in Smith v Mercier DC Dunedin TT 228/93, 10 May 1994).
“a lack of attention, care, or precaution that an ordinary, careful person would take. It is relevant to ask whether the tenant was negligent in allowing damage to continue after it should have been obvious that it was occurring.” See Utrust Property Management Ltd vs None [2023] NZTT 4459482, 4509090.
The tenant was in the kitchen cooking. She held a bottle of cooking oil. The bottle slipped from her grasp. This appears to be covered by the indication that there was a “inadvertent lack of care” or “a failure to exercise a degree of care and attention.”
The onus of proving that the damage was not caused by an intentional or careless act is on the tenant. I do not consider on the evidence that the tenant has discharged that obligation. The dropping of the bottle was in my view the result of an inadvertent lack of care. I find the tenant liable for the damage.
The parties agreed that the repair cost was $647.99. The landlord is ordered to immediately reimburse the tenant for $552.01, being the balance held by the landlord after meeting the repair costs.
The tenant seeks reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application is dismissed.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful, and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.
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.
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 declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4733315 — net $552.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Balance of security deposit	$552.01	Balance of security deposit
Net award	$552.01
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$552.01

Order

The tenant application is dismissed.
The landlord is ordered to pay $552.01 to the tenant immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this hearing on 19 January 2024.
The essential facts in this matter are not in issue.
The tenant says that during the tenancy she was cooking in the kitchen.
A bottle of cooking oil slipped from her grasp and fell onto a glass topped cook top. The glass top was damaged. The damage was relatively minor.
The parties agree that repairs to the glass cook top will cost $647.99.
The tenant has lodged $1,200.00 with the landlord to cover the potential costs of the damage. The sum of $1,200.00 was arrived at by the parties, as this is the amount of the excess on the landlord’s insurance policy.
The tenant wishes to have the full $1200.00 returned to her as she says that the damage was caused accidentally and as a result, she is not liable for the damage.
The landlord says that the damage was caused carelessly and that the tenant is therefore responsible for the costs of the repair as they are less than the landlord insurance excess.
Liability for damage that is caused during a tenancy depends upon how and when it was caused.
Firstly, the landlord must prove that it happened during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. I have no difficulty in finding that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear.
Once that is established, then it is up to the tenant to prove that they did not intentionally or carelessly cause the damage to avoid liability.
Careless damage is damage that is caused by an inadvertent lack of reasonable care. Careless damage is limited to the amount of the landlord’s insurance excess (if covered), or the amount of four weeks rent; whichever the lesser.
Intentional damage is damage done on purpose or where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. The issue of intentional damage is not of relevance to this enquiry.
Accidental damage, where there is no tenant liability, is damage that is greater than fair wear and tear but could not have reasonably been prevented.
There is no assistance with the definition of “careless damage“ in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) or higher court decisions.
The following is of assistance in considering the issue;
“Its usual meaning is the lack of care, negligence or lack of forethought... Also heedless or thoughtless, and can cover a situation of inadvertent lack of care. The standard of care is the standard of an ordinary careful person. An ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions against every foreseeable risk, but only against those risks that are reasonably likely to happen.” See Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850.
“Was the tenant exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances?” See Mercier v Smith Dunedin TT 228/93, 14 December 1993 (upheld in Smith v Mercier DC Dunedin TT 228/93, 10 May 1994).
“a lack of attention, care, or precaution that an ordinary, careful person would take. It is relevant to ask whether the tenant was negligent in allowing damage to continue after it should have been obvious that it was occurring.” See Utrust Property Management Ltd vs None [2023] NZTT 4459482, 4509090.
The tenant was in the kitchen cooking. She held a bottle of cooking oil. The bottle slipped from her grasp. This appears to be covered by the indication that there was a “inadvertent lack of care” or “a failure to exercise a degree of care and attention.”
The onus of proving that the damage was not caused by an intentional or careless act is on the tenant. I do not consider on the evidence that the tenant has discharged that obligation. The dropping of the bottle was in my view the result of an inadvertent lack of care. I find the tenant liable for the damage.
The parties agreed that the repair cost was $647.99. The landlord is ordered to immediately reimburse the tenant for $552.01, being the balance held by the landlord after meeting the repair costs.
The tenant seeks reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the application is dismissed.
Both parties have applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful, and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.
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.
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 declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4733315 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4733315 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions