What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4744290 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties, and

How much money was awarded in case 4744290?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4744290?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4744290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9816040-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4744290 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties, and

How much money was awarded in case 4744290?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4744290?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4744290?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9816040-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4744290 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4744290 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the tenants immediately.
Moore Rentals Ltd As Agent For Colin & Leeanne Lane Maureen Moore, Colin Lane and Leeanne Lane must pay the tenants $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for their full bond to be returned to them, following the end of their tenancy on 15 October 2023, without deduction and for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord made a cross application for compensation of $256.45 for damage to lino they say was caused by the tenants during their tenancy, reimbursement of $550.00 insurance excess for a claim for repair of a glass stove top damaged by the tenants during the tenancy, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Suppression of names and identifying details
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenants as the successful party have been granted name suppression as it would not be in the interests of justice for their names and identifying details to be published when their successful application could lead to impediments to them being able to secure future tenancies when future landlords see that they took steps to uphold their statutory rights.
The landlord did not provide any evidence to the Tribunal that they may suffer extreme hardship nor that it would not be in the public interest if their name was made public. Therefore, as the unsuccessful party, the landlords application for name suppression and suppression of their identifying details is not granted.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Section 49A of the Residential tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a tenant has no liability or obligation, and must not be required, to (a) meet the cost of making good any destruction of, or damage to, the premises; or (b)indemnify the landlord against the cost of making good the destruction or damage; or (c)pay damages related to the destruction or damage; or (d)carry out any works to make good the destruction or damage; or (e)meet the cost of making good any fair wear and tear resulting from the tenant’s use of the premises during the tenancy.
Section 49B lists two exceptions to s49A, being destruction or damage that was intentionally or carelessly done to the premises from acts or omissions by the tenants, or people at the premises with their permission, or that was the result of an act or omission on or about the premises that constitutes an imprisonable offence.
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.
Careless means not paying attention, unthinking, insensitive, done without care or an act or omission that is below the standard of care of a reasonable and prudent tenant.
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(3A)(a) 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 landlords proved that the tenants caused the damage to the glass stove top during the tenancy and that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. They did not prove that the damage to the stove top was intentional nor that the damage resulted from the carelessness of the tenants. The tenants explained during the hearing that the damage to the glass stovetop has resulted from hot oil splashing on one tenant when he was cooking that resulted in him receiving a burn that led to him automatically releasing the pan out of his hand and it dropped on to the edge of the stove top thereby chipping the glass. The tenants accept this should have been reported to the landlord as soon as it occurred but did not. I find that the tenants have proven that the damage to the stove top was accidental and not because of their deliberate, intentional or careless act or omission. The act that caused the damage does not constitute an imprisonable offence. Therefore, in accordance with s49A, the tenants are not reasonable for the cost of making good the damage to stove top and the landlords claim for reimbursement of their insurance excess fails.
It was not clearly established that the cuts in the lino occurred during the tenancy. The tenants moved out of the remises on 13 October 2023. The exit inspection was carried out around 16 October 2023 by the property manager and the cuts were not identified as damage to the premises during this inspection. The owners first accessed the property on 17 October 2023 to carry out remedial work to the premises and noticed the cuts in the lino. They took photographs of this damage on 18 October 2023. These photographs were not provided to the tenants util some time in November 2023. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant deny responsibility for the damage and say that the damage may have been caused by the owners painting gear, such as a cutting knife. The owners deny having a cutting knife on the premises and state they had paint, rollers and brushes and sandpaper and that these items were always on thick drop sheets. The tenants have cast doubt over whether the damage was caused by them during the tenancy or the owners when carrying out the remedial work, as the damage was not highlighted to the tenants during the exit inspection. The tenants deny causing this damage and state that there was no careless or deliberate act that they were responsible for that could have caused the damage to the lino. I find that the tenants have disproved liability for the damage to the lino and in all probability the damage, if it had been caused by them, was not caused intentionally or by a careless act nor by an act that constitutes an imprisonable offence. Therefore, the landlords claim for repair costs from the damage to the lino fails.
Given the landlords general damages claims have failed, the full bond is payable to the tenants immediately.
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse their filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4744290 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Bond	$2,080.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,080.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the tenants immediately.
Moore Rentals Ltd As Agent For Colin & Leeanne Lane Maureen Moore, Colin Lane and Leeanne Lane must pay the tenants $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants applied for their full bond to be returned to them, following the end of their tenancy on 15 October 2023, without deduction and for reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord made a cross application for compensation of $256.45 for damage to lino they say was caused by the tenants during their tenancy, reimbursement of $550.00 insurance excess for a claim for repair of a glass stove top damaged by the tenants during the tenancy, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Suppression of names and identifying details
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenants as the successful party have been granted name suppression as it would not be in the interests of justice for their names and identifying details to be published when their successful application could lead to impediments to them being able to secure future tenancies when future landlords see that they took steps to uphold their statutory rights.
The landlord did not provide any evidence to the Tribunal that they may suffer extreme hardship nor that it would not be in the public interest if their name was made public. Therefore, as the unsuccessful party, the landlords application for name suppression and suppression of their identifying details is not granted.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Section 49A of the Residential tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a tenant has no liability or obligation, and must not be required, to (a) meet the cost of making good any destruction of, or damage to, the premises; or (b)indemnify the landlord against the cost of making good the destruction or damage; or (c)pay damages related to the destruction or damage; or (d)carry out any works to make good the destruction or damage; or (e)meet the cost of making good any fair wear and tear resulting from the tenant’s use of the premises during the tenancy.
Section 49B lists two exceptions to s49A, being destruction or damage that was intentionally or carelessly done to the premises from acts or omissions by the tenants, or people at the premises with their permission, or that was the result of an act or omission on or about the premises that constitutes an imprisonable offence.
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.
Careless means not paying attention, unthinking, insensitive, done without care or an act or omission that is below the standard of care of a reasonable and prudent tenant.
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(3A)(a) 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 landlords proved that the tenants caused the damage to the glass stove top during the tenancy and that the damage was more than fair wear and tear. They did not prove that the damage to the stove top was intentional nor that the damage resulted from the carelessness of the tenants. The tenants explained during the hearing that the damage to the glass stovetop has resulted from hot oil splashing on one tenant when he was cooking that resulted in him receiving a burn that led to him automatically releasing the pan out of his hand and it dropped on to the edge of the stove top thereby chipping the glass. The tenants accept this should have been reported to the landlord as soon as it occurred but did not. I find that the tenants have proven that the damage to the stove top was accidental and not because of their deliberate, intentional or careless act or omission. The act that caused the damage does not constitute an imprisonable offence. Therefore, in accordance with s49A, the tenants are not reasonable for the cost of making good the damage to stove top and the landlords claim for reimbursement of their insurance excess fails.
It was not clearly established that the cuts in the lino occurred during the tenancy. The tenants moved out of the remises on 13 October 2023. The exit inspection was carried out around 16 October 2023 by the property manager and the cuts were not identified as damage to the premises during this inspection. The owners first accessed the property on 17 October 2023 to carry out remedial work to the premises and noticed the cuts in the lino. They took photographs of this damage on 18 October 2023. These photographs were not provided to the tenants util some time in November 2023. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, the tenant deny responsibility for the damage and say that the damage may have been caused by the owners painting gear, such as a cutting knife. The owners deny having a cutting knife on the premises and state they had paint, rollers and brushes and sandpaper and that these items were always on thick drop sheets. The tenants have cast doubt over whether the damage was caused by them during the tenancy or the owners when carrying out the remedial work, as the damage was not highlighted to the tenants during the exit inspection. The tenants deny causing this damage and state that there was no careless or deliberate act that they were responsible for that could have caused the damage to the lino. I find that the tenants have disproved liability for the damage to the lino and in all probability the damage, if it had been caused by them, was not caused intentionally or by a careless act nor by an act that constitutes an imprisonable offence. Therefore, the landlords claim for repair costs from the damage to the lino fails.
Given the landlords general damages claims have failed, the full bond is payable to the tenants immediately.
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse their filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4744290 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4744290 — Tenancy dispute

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