What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4771383 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,270.44 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4771383?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4771383?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4771383?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10376477-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4771383 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,270.44 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4771383?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4771383?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4771383?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10376477-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4771383 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4771383 — net $1,270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance Excess	$750.00	Insurance Excess
Repairs: Door repairs	$500.00	Repairs: Door repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,270.44
Bond	$2,596.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,270.44

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,270.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,596.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,270.44 [The tenant/s]: $1,325.56

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.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Oven racks:
The landlord says that oven racks were present at the time the tenant moved in. The tenant says she was unaware that these were missing. The landlord has not provided any photographic evidence of the missing oven racks.
This claim is dismissed.

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. Insurance excess for damage to carpet and vanity:
The landlord says that the tenant had placed pot plants on the carpet. There was also damage as a result of pet urine. The landlord does not know how old the carpet is.
The tenant stated during the hearing that the carpet was approximately 40 years old. The landlord says that the insurance excess relates only to carpet and vanity damage. Evidence in the form of exit photographs taken on 8 December 2023 were provided in support of these two claims.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the bathroom vanity. The tenant says that the damage occurred when she was using nail polish remover. The landlord is unaware of how old the bathroom vanity is. The photographs provided show significant damage to the vanity.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for damage to the carpet and vanity. I am also satisfied that this damage took place during the tenancy.
The tenant accepts the damage to the carpet. She also says that the urine was from the previous tenant’s dog. The total claim is for the insurance excess of $1250.00. The landlord says that the entire carpet and vanity had to be replaced.
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.
The landlord is uncertain of the precise age for the carpet and the vanity. Photographs show that these were in reasonable order at the start of the tenancy. The outgoing photographs of the carpet show extensive damage. The extent of the damage would be careless or intentional damage. Alternatively the tenant has not returned the carpets reasonably clean. I must also apply depreciation in respect of the vanity.
The Tribunal must apply depreciation, and if the depreciation was approached applying the Inland Revenue depreciation guides (IR 265), then the conclusion would be reached that the carpet was at the end of its useful life. However, again the ingoing photographs showed the carpet in reasonable condition, I am not persuaded that the carpet would have necessarily been at the end of its life for this tenancy.
Accordingly, I allow the claim for insurance excess but award a reduced amount of $750.00 reflecting the realistic age of these items. Bathroom door:
The tenant says that she was in hospital from 12 July 2023 to 8 August 2023. She says that the door was damaged when she returned home from the hospital. The previous tenant was removed as a tenant by the Tenancy Tribunal on 17 August 2023. Prior to that this tenant was a joint tenant. Both tenants are jointly liable for any damage. The tenant has no idea how the damage occurred. The landlord has provided an invoice from Go Go Painters for $1035.00. In my view this amount is excessive and is not supported by the evidence.
The outgoing photographs establish the damage claimed by the landlord, which includes damage to the doors. The damage is unquestionably beyond fair wear and tear. That being said, the evidence provided by the landlord does not support the amount claimed. I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for damage to the door but allow a reduced amount of $500.00 to reflect the tenant’s liability. Plumber’s invoice:
The landlord claims a plumber’s invoice in respect of repairs to the super tub handle. The landlord says that the tub handle had been unthreaded and just kept spinning. They say that the owner told her the tap was only 12 months old.
The tenant says that she was not aware of any damage to the tub handle. Photographic evidence of the tub handle was not taken until late December 2023. The plumber’s invoice for $233.80 is dated 29 December 2023.
I have carefully assessed the evidence provided in support of this claim. The evidence clearly shows corrosion under the tap which in my view amounts to fair wear and tear. This is not attributable to the tenant. Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
This claim in respect of the plumber’s invoice is dismissed. Toilet seat:
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the toilet seat. They say that the internal mechanism which closes the lid softly was damaged. They further state that a plumber advised the most likely cause of the damage was the tenant standing on it.
The landlord says that the toilet seat was new when the tenant moved in.
The tenant does not accept this claim. She says that she has never stood on the toilet seat. The landlord says that photographic evidence of the toilet seat damage was not discovered by the owner until late December 2023, some three weeks after the tenant moved out.
I find that the evidence provided in support of this claim does not link the tenant to this damage. There is no evidence to suggest that this is anything other than fair wear and tear.
Under section 49B (8)(a)(i), the onus is on the landlord to establish that the damage is not fair wear and tear. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, but I am not satisfied that it is met.
The claim in respect of the toilet seat is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.
The tenant applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details. Taking into account her personal circumstances I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct any other circumstances of the case. I have also considered suppression orders in respect of earlier decisions relating to this tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4771383 — net $1,270.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance Excess	$750.00	Insurance Excess
Repairs: Door repairs	$500.00	Repairs: Door repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,270.44
Bond	$2,596.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,270.44

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,270.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,596.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,270.44 [The tenant/s]: $1,325.56

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.

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

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs. Oven racks:
The landlord says that oven racks were present at the time the tenant moved in. The tenant says she was unaware that these were missing. The landlord has not provided any photographic evidence of the missing oven racks.
This claim is dismissed.

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. Insurance excess for damage to carpet and vanity:
The landlord says that the tenant had placed pot plants on the carpet. There was also damage as a result of pet urine. The landlord does not know how old the carpet is.
The tenant stated during the hearing that the carpet was approximately 40 years old. The landlord says that the insurance excess relates only to carpet and vanity damage. Evidence in the form of exit photographs taken on 8 December 2023 were provided in support of these two claims.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged the bathroom vanity. The tenant says that the damage occurred when she was using nail polish remover. The landlord is unaware of how old the bathroom vanity is. The photographs provided show significant damage to the vanity.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for damage to the carpet and vanity. I am also satisfied that this damage took place during the tenancy.
The tenant accepts the damage to the carpet. She also says that the urine was from the previous tenant’s dog. The total claim is for the insurance excess of $1250.00. The landlord says that the entire carpet and vanity had to be replaced.
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.
The landlord is uncertain of the precise age for the carpet and the vanity. Photographs show that these were in reasonable order at the start of the tenancy. The outgoing photographs of the carpet show extensive damage. The extent of the damage would be careless or intentional damage. Alternatively the tenant has not returned the carpets reasonably clean. I must also apply depreciation in respect of the vanity.
The Tribunal must apply depreciation, and if the depreciation was approached applying the Inland Revenue depreciation guides (IR 265), then the conclusion would be reached that the carpet was at the end of its useful life. However, again the ingoing photographs showed the carpet in reasonable condition, I am not persuaded that the carpet would have necessarily been at the end of its life for this tenancy.
Accordingly, I allow the claim for insurance excess but award a reduced amount of $750.00 reflecting the realistic age of these items. Bathroom door:
The tenant says that she was in hospital from 12 July 2023 to 8 August 2023. She says that the door was damaged when she returned home from the hospital. The previous tenant was removed as a tenant by the Tenancy Tribunal on 17 August 2023. Prior to that this tenant was a joint tenant. Both tenants are jointly liable for any damage. The tenant has no idea how the damage occurred. The landlord has provided an invoice from Go Go Painters for $1035.00. In my view this amount is excessive and is not supported by the evidence.
The outgoing photographs establish the damage claimed by the landlord, which includes damage to the doors. The damage is unquestionably beyond fair wear and tear. That being said, the evidence provided by the landlord does not support the amount claimed. I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for damage to the door but allow a reduced amount of $500.00 to reflect the tenant’s liability. Plumber’s invoice:
The landlord claims a plumber’s invoice in respect of repairs to the super tub handle. The landlord says that the tub handle had been unthreaded and just kept spinning. They say that the owner told her the tap was only 12 months old.
The tenant says that she was not aware of any damage to the tub handle. Photographic evidence of the tub handle was not taken until late December 2023. The plumber’s invoice for $233.80 is dated 29 December 2023.
I have carefully assessed the evidence provided in support of this claim. The evidence clearly shows corrosion under the tap which in my view amounts to fair wear and tear. This is not attributable to the tenant. Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
This claim in respect of the plumber’s invoice is dismissed. Toilet seat:
The landlord says that the tenant damaged the toilet seat. They say that the internal mechanism which closes the lid softly was damaged. They further state that a plumber advised the most likely cause of the damage was the tenant standing on it.
The landlord says that the toilet seat was new when the tenant moved in.
The tenant does not accept this claim. She says that she has never stood on the toilet seat. The landlord says that photographic evidence of the toilet seat damage was not discovered by the owner until late December 2023, some three weeks after the tenant moved out.
I find that the evidence provided in support of this claim does not link the tenant to this damage. There is no evidence to suggest that this is anything other than fair wear and tear.
Under section 49B (8)(a)(i), the onus is on the landlord to establish that the damage is not fair wear and tear. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, but I am not satisfied that it is met.
The claim in respect of the toilet seat is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.
The tenant applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details. Taking into account her personal circumstances I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenant’s conduct any other circumstances of the case. I have also considered suppression orders in respect of earlier decisions relating to this tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4771383 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4771383 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

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

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions