What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4758838 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4758838?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758838?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9983342-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4758838 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 4758838?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4758838?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4758838?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9983342-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4758838 — Property damage

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $500.00 immediately.

Reasons

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

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 29 November 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which are shared by the two tenancies. The total amount claimed between the two tenancies is $427.00. This tenancy ended more than two weeks earlier than the second tenancy. I consider $180.00 to be a fair share to be attributed to this tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys and security devices, See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant did not return the keys. The tenant says that she did not have a key and only had a swipe card. In this issue, I prefer the evidence of the landlord. Damages to the door lock resulted in a further call out. The landlord provided copies of the invoices in support of the claim. I consider that a fair share of the costs to be attributed to this tenant to be $416.25.

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.
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.
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. The landlord is not insured.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Damage to the walls and floors. The landlord has provided invoices and photos in support of the claim. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount allocated to this tenancy is $776.25.
I have taken into account 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. I record that the condition of the premises at the commencement was “as new” and have only made a modest deduction.
[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time. The tenant paid $1,260.00 in bond.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says that they were not aware of the obligation. They accept that the bond had not been paid to the Bond Centre. Operating a residential tenancy is a business. There is an obligation on the landlord to be aware of their obligations. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has acted intentionally. It is in the best interests of this tenant and tenants generally to have their bond held by an independent body to avoid situations such as this occurring. In setting the level of exemplary damages, I note that the landlord has already returned the bulk of the bond money to the tenant. The landlord is ordered to pay $500.00 to the tenant in exemplary damages.
I have noted in the summary of payments that the tenant has already been paid $915.00 from her bond.
Both parties have applied for reimbursement of the filing fee. As both parties have been successful, I make no order regarding the bond.
Both parties applied for name suppression. In the circumstances where both parties have been substantially successful with their respective claims, I order suppression of the name and details of both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4758838 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 4758838 — Property damage

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?