What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4735093 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $224.25 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4735093?

Walls And Paint: $224.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4735093?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4735093?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10199905-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4735093 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $224.25 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4735093?

Walls And Paint: $224.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4735093?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4735093?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10199905-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4735093 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4735093 — net $224.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: walls and paint	$224.25	Repairs: walls and paint
Net award	$224.25
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$224.25

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant seeks reimbursement of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the ceramic cooktop. b. Damage to the paint in the living room.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear.

In relation to the cooktop, the tenant accepts that the damage occurred during the tenancy. It occurred when the tenant was lifting a salad bowl down, was startled by the sudden barking of the neighbour’s dog and dropped the bowl. The edge of the bowl caused a significant chip in the ceramic cooktop.

The landlord cannot rebut that explanation, and entirely accepts that the damage was not intentional. However, the landlord seeks to recover the cost of repairs on the basis that the tenants had an obligation to take care when using the kitchen and the cooktop to avoid damage.

While I accept that submission, in the present case, there was no apparent risk taking, or behaviour that increased the risk of damage to the cooktop by the tenant. Given the explanation of being startled by the dog barking, I accept that this damage was not caused by the tenant’s carelessness, and I find the tenant has disproved liability for it.

The landlord’s application is dismissed.

In relation to the paint claim, the tenants accept that the patch of wall was damaged during the tenancy but argue that they are not liable for the full cost as three walls were painted, not the just the affected area.

The landlord argues that three walls were required to ensure a paint match.

I accept that argument, and I consider the tenant is liable for the full cost of the repair and paintwork.

The amounts ordered are proved.

As both parties were substantially successful, I have ordered suppression of their names and details at their request.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4735093 — net $224.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: walls and paint	$224.25	Repairs: walls and paint
Net award	$224.25
Bond	$2,520.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$224.25

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $224.25 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $224.25 [The tenant/s]: $2,295.75
The remaining claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant seeks reimbursement of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the ceramic cooktop. b. Damage to the paint in the living room.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
In relation to the cooktop, the tenant accepts that the damage occurred during the tenancy. It occurred when the tenant was lifting a salad bowl down, was startled by the sudden barking of the neighbour’s dog and dropped the bowl. The edge of the bowl caused a significant chip in the ceramic cooktop.
The landlord cannot rebut that explanation, and entirely accepts that the damage was not intentional. However, the landlord seeks to recover the cost of repairs on the basis that the tenants had an obligation to take care when using the kitchen and the cooktop to avoid damage.
While I accept that submission, in the present case, there was no apparent risk taking, or behaviour that increased the risk of damage to the cooktop by the tenant. Given the explanation of being startled by the dog barking, I accept that this damage was not caused by the tenant’s carelessness, and I find the tenant has disproved liability for it.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
In relation to the paint claim, the tenants accept that the patch of wall was damaged during the tenancy but argue that they are not liable for the full cost as three walls were painted, not the just the affected area.
The landlord argues that three walls were required to ensure a paint match.
I accept that argument, and I consider the tenant is liable for the full cost of the repair and paintwork.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As both parties were substantially successful, I have ordered suppression of their names and details at their request.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4735093 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4735093 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions