What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4771057 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Pjf Limited $641.43 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4771057?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $225.37 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door: $192.62 awarded to landlord; Shower Head Pole: $103.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4771057?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4771057?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10084405-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4771057 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Pjf Limited $641.43 immediately, calculated as shown

How much money was awarded in case 4771057?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $225.37 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door: $192.62 awarded to landlord; Shower Head Pole: $103.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4771057?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4771057?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10084405-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

33A Clemow Road, Fitzroy, New Plymouth 4312 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4771057 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4771057 — net $641.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: shower head pole	$103.00	Repairs: shower head pole
Repairs: bedroom door	$192.62	Repairs: bedroom door
Repair wardrobe door painting	$100.00	Repair wardrobe door painting
Repair garage door – repair and painting	$225.37	Repair garage door – repair and painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$641.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$641.43

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4771057 — net $641.43 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: shower head pole	$103.00	Repairs: shower head pole
Repairs: bedroom door	$192.62	Repairs: bedroom door
Repair wardrobe door painting	$100.00	Repair wardrobe door painting
Repair garage door – repair and painting	$225.37	Repair garage door – repair and painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$641.43
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$641.43

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Pjf Limited $641.43 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Mr Francis and Ms Sorensen, the landlords, and [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2], the tenants, all attended the hearing by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for termination and possession, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. During the hearing, the landlords withdrew their claim for termination and possession, as the parties had all agreed that the tenants would leave the tenancy on 13 March 2024.

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.
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 landlord said the following damage was caused during the tenancy: Door handles
The landlord said the tenants broke 3 door handles at the property during the tenancy, that these were built into this new property that was completed only 10 years ago, with other similar units beside it, that none of the other units had experienced broken door handles, and that a locksmith had told them the square part through the middle of the door lock had been broken in one door handle, which could only have occurred from the use of force. There were no photographs provided of any broken or damaged door handles, nor was there a report or quote or invoice from a locksmith or any other tradesperson in relation to any repair cost. The landlord guessed that the repair costs for these door handles would be around $25.00 each plus GST.
[Tenant 1] said they did not break any door handles. She assumed the door handles were broken from general wear and tear in daily use. She emphasised that her children do not swing on door handles, as was assumed by the landlord. She maintained that one time a door handle breaking triggered another situation involving a bedroom door, which is dealt with below.
I find there is insufficient evidence to prove the door handles were broken during the tenancy or as to the cost of repair. As this claim is not proved, I dismiss this claim. Tenants’ repair work
As regards the landlord’s remaining claims, apart from the carpet cleaning, the landlord said the parties had agreed after a property inspection where the landlord discovered the damage outlined below, that [Tenant 1]’s father, who was a builder by trade, would repair the damage to ease any cost on the tenants. Later, Mr Francis said he discovered the repairs were not undertaken by [Tenant 1]’s father but were done by the tenants themselves, without the landlord’s knowledge or consent. He indicated their insurance assessor had looked at the repairs done by the tenants and deemed them to be substandard and said they had to be redone by a professional.
[Tenant 1] said her father had been unavailable as he was called to do another job and so they decided to undertake the work themselves. The tenants believed they had carried out the repairs adequately, with only some sanding and further coats of paint required in places. Both parties provided photographs during the hearing of the tenants’ repair work. From these photographs and given the evidence, I find these repairs undertaken by the tenants not to be to the standard of a building professional and thus find that further repairs to bring the damage to a professional standard would be required. I have dealt with the damage claims, as below, on this basis. Shower head pole
Mr Francis said the tenants damaged a shower head pole. A photograph was provided of a round shower tube with a flattened dent on one side. Mr Francis said there was concern this damage had spread into the cavity, but it turned out not to have spread there. Mr Francis said the insurance excess, confirmed in the Tenancy Agreement, was $550.00. However, he claimed their insurance company had told them there would be a $550.00 excess fee for each ‘event’, and that as several items were damaged at different times, several excess fees could apply to this situation. Mr Francis later clarified they had withdrawn their insurance claim and sought less compensation than all the combined insurance excesses they would have been charged from the tenants, to make it easier on the tenants financially.
[Tenant 1] acknowledged that she caused the dent to the shower head pole. She said she slipped in the shower and grabbed onto the pole to stop herself from falling. I find this to be careless damage on the part of the tenants. As such, the tenants are liable for the repair cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap.
The landlord provided an invoice for repairing the shower pole at $228.85. [Tenant 1] thought this was a reasonable cost for this repair. I find this to be a reasonable cost for this repair, prior to consideration of depreciation.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord said everything in the property was put in 10 years ago, so the shower pole was 10 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate a shower pole in a rental property is expected to last around 18 years. As such, I deduct the $228.85 cost I find reasonable to replace the shower pole by 55% for depreciation to an award of $103.00 to replace the shower pole. Large hole in bedroom door
The landlord said the tenant made a large hole in a bedroom door and provided a photograph of this hole.
The tenants acknowledged they had caused the hole in the bedroom door. [Tenant 1] said that, when one of the door handles broke, she, her partner and their children were trapped in the room. She said her partner and the children climbed out through the window, but she could not. She maintained she texted the landlord about this when trapped, but the landlord did not respond until the following day. Mr Francis said he was not made aware of the circumstances, only that a door handle had broken. As [Tenant 1] remained in the room and [Tenant 2] was unable to open the door to let her out, she said he became very anxious and banged the bedroom door and made a hole in it. I find this to be intentional damage on the part of the tenants. As such, the tenants are liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49 B RTA does not apply here.
The landlord said the cost of repairing the bedroom door was $192.62, one- quarter of an invoice for $770.50 for various repair jobs completed. I find this to be a reasonable cost to repair the door.
The landlord said the bedroom door was around 10 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate painted bedroom doors in a rental property are expected to last around 12 years with their paint. I note here from the evidence, however, that the majority of this repair was to fill and sand the hole made in the door, rather than to repaint it. As such I do not deduct this repair cost for depreciation and award the landlord $192.62 to repair the bedroom door, given this is a reasonable figure for this repair. Wardrobe sliding doors
Mr Francis said the tenants damaged wardrobe doors in a bedroom, as the high volume of their belongings inside the wardrobe pushed the door outwards, yet the tenants continued to push the wardrobe doors back and forth and so this caused scraping on the top of both wardrobe sliding doors back to the wood through the paint on them.
The tenants acknowledged they caused the damage to the wardrobe doors with the volume of items kept in the wardrobe. I find this to be careless damage on the part of the tenants. As such, the tenants are liable for the repair cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49B RTA cap.
The landlord said the cost of repairing the wardrobe doors was $192.62. I find this to be a reasonable cost, prior to consideration of depreciation.
The landlord said the wardrobe sliding doors and their paint were around 10 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate the paint on wardrobe doors in a rental property to last around 12 years. Normally the repair painting cost of $192.62 would be depreciated by 83%. However, in this situation, I find the painting damage to the wardrobe sliding doors was exacerbated by frequent pushing and pulling of these doors by the tenants, despite the full volume of items inside the wardrobe pushing the doors out, and so these actions accelerated the damage. If this had not have occurred, I find the paint on the wardrobe doors would likely have lasted much longer. I find $100.00 to be a reasonable cost for the repainting of the wardrobe doors, given the evidence and the exacerbation of the damage by the tenants, that this is well below the insurance excess, and so award this to the landlord. Garage wall
Mr Francis said the property has an internal garage and the tenants made gauges in the garage wall. He provided a photograph of this and said there were finger-sized gauges in this wall across around 3-4 metres of this garage wall.
The tenants said that their 3-year-old son opened the car door into the garage wall and caused the damage to the garage wall over time each time he opened the car door. I find this to be careless damage on the part of the tenants. As such, the tenants are liable for the repair cost, bearing in mind depreciation and the section 49 B RTA cap.
The landlord claimed $385.25, half the invoice of $770.50, to repair the garage wall and repaint it. The landlord said the garage wall and paint would have been around 10 years old. From the evidence about the damage to the garage wall and the extent of the area covered and from the tradesperson’s invoice, I find that about 50% of the repair was painting, whilst the other 50% was repair in filling and sanding the wall. Given this, I only depreciate the painting part of the repair. Current depreciation guidelines estimate that painted walls such as that in the garage should last around 12 years. As such, I take 50% of the cost of this repair, which would be $192.62 that I find to be reasonable, and deduct this $192.62 cost by 83% for depreciation to an award of $32.75 for the painting of the garage wall. I then add on the repair portion cost of the wall, which would be $192.62, to the depreciated painting cost, for a total repair cost to the garage wall of $225.37. This is well below the insurance excess and so I award this to the landlord to repair the garage wall. Carpet
Mr Francis said the tenants damaged the carpet, which had been replaced about 18 months before the tenancy started, by causing a stain, and that it would need cleaning. He confirmed other tenants had lived at the property with this new carpet before these tenants. He provided a photograph of a carpet stain and believed that a dog had caused this carpet stain. Mr Francis emphasised that no pets were allowed at the property in the Tenancy Agreement, especially dogs, as he has a family member who is highly allergic to dogs and suffers anaphylactic reactions to dogs. He provided videos from neighbours of a dog coming and going from the front of the property with people.
[Tenant 1] said they did not have a dog, that a family member of theirs who visited them would bring their dog over and that she was not aware of the highly allergic family member of the landlord’s. She maintained the carpet stain was caused by her children and not a dog.
The landlord said a carpet cleaning is generally around $239.00. However, the landlord did not provide any quote or invoice for carpet cleaning cost. Nor was there any evidence provided as to whether this stain could be removed easily with targeted carpet treatments. As such, I find there is insufficient evidence to prove the amount of the landlord’s claim for carpet cleaning and this claim is dismissed.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee
Because Pjf Limited has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not request suppression. During the hearing, the tenants requested suppression.
Section 95A RTA provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The tenants are the parents of young children. The evidence indicated that both tried to carry out repairs of the damage, despite findings as to the quality of those repairs. They acknowledged causing most of the damage, either carelessly or intentionally and negotiated a date with the landlord as to when they would leave the property. In the circumstances, and given the evidence, I find the tenants’ interests outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the tenants’ names and identifying details are not to be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4771057 — Property damage at 33A Clemow Road, Fitzroy, New Plymouth 4312

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4771057 — Property damage at 33A Clemow Road, Fitzroy, New Plymouth 4312

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions