What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4773943 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $610.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4773943?

Walls and Doors: $1,420.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773943?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10349341-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4773943 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $610.00 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4773943?

Walls and Doors: $1,420.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773943?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10349341-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 1216 New North Road, Mount Albert, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4773943 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4773943 — net $610.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to walls and doors following the end of the tenancy	$1,420.00	Repairs to walls and doors following the end of the tenancy
Net award	$610.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$610.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $610.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $810.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The payments set out in 1 and 2 above have been calculated as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [current property manager]. [the tenant] was represented by her mother, [tenant’s representative], who appeared by phone from Australia.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This was a very long term tenancy. Although the current landlord took over as property manager on 1 November 2014, the tenancy began towards the end of 2008. Neither party was able to locate a copy of the tenancy agreement.
The tenant ([the tenant]) did not reside in the property herself but rented the property for her elderly grandparents ([tenant’s representative]’s parents), who were in their late eighties when the tenancy ended.

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 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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. 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 says that at the end of the tenancy they discovered various damage including various holes in walls and doors, and provide some photos of the damage. The landlord has produced a quote from Central Property Services Ltd in the amount of $4,427.50 to repairs as follows:
[tenant’s representative] says that: a. her father had dementia towards the end of the tenancy (which ended when her parents were relocated to a rest home) and that he was likely responsible for the damage; b. very little maintenance had been carried out on the property during the tenancy, but that when her parents moved out the family cleaned it to the satisfaction of the landlord and agreed to cover the cost of repairs, which she accepts are more than fair wear and tear, and that the amount had been agreed to be $1,420 on the basis of a quote obtained by the landlord; and c. the property is over 60 years old, and while the family are prepared to pay for the cost of repairing the damage they do not consider that they should have to pay for the full cost of brand new rimu doors and painting and renovations that the landlord would have had to do anyway after a tenancy of this duration.
[tenant’s representative] referred me to correspondence between herself and the previous property manager. That correspondence shows that the previous property manager obtained a quote to repair the damage in the amount of $1,420, and presented it to [the tenant] for confirmation, who (after an initial query) accepted the quote on 2 November 2023.
She said that she was surprised, having accepted the first quote, to receive a second quote from the previous property manager on 8 November 2023 in the amount of $4,427.50. She said that the family do not agree to pay this amount, for the reasons set out in paragraph 10(b) and (c) above. She confirmed that the family remain prepared to pay the amount of the first quote, which they consider fair and reasonable.

What compensation is the landlord entitled to?

I have considered the parties submissions, the two quotes and the correspondence carefully.
I consider that the correspondence shows that the landlord and tenant had in fact reached agreement about the costs of repairs and that the tenant should accordingly be liable for that amount ($1,420).
However even if I had not found that agreement had been reached I would not have ordered payment of the entire second quote as claimed by the landlord.
Tenant’s should only pay for the cost of repairing careless or intentional damage. 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. Deductions are often required to take into account betterment and depreciation.
This is a fairly old property that had not been renovated in at least 14 years, possibly more. I was not given any information as to the state of the property when the tenants moved in (in 2008). It is inevitable that there would have been some wear and tear to walls and doors during the tenancy and it is quite usual for a landlord to have to completely repaint the interior after a tenancy of this duration.
I consider that the tenant should only be responsible for the cost of the fixing the jib and replastering, but not the painting. While they should be responsible for the cost of repairing the doors, they should not be responsible for paying for new door hardware and doorstops, and some depreciation should be factored in as the landlord now has new doors.
Taking all these factors into account, I consider that the amount previously agreed with the tenant is reasonable and appropriate. I order payment of that amount. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord is technically the successful party as I have made an award of compensation but as the tenant had in fact already agreed to pay this amount I do not consider that the landlord is entitled to a refund of the filing fee.
The landlord is entitled to an order for name suppression but in the circumstances I consider that the tenant’s name should also be suppressed as the tenant had in fact accepted payment of the amount ordered.
The parties’ names will be removed from the published order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4773943 — net $610.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to walls and doors following the end of the tenancy	$1,420.00	Repairs to walls and doors following the end of the tenancy
Net award	$610.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$610.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $610.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $810.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The payments set out in 1 and 2 above have been calculated as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [current property manager]. [the tenant] was represented by her mother, [tenant’s representative], who appeared by phone from Australia.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This was a very long term tenancy. Although the current landlord took over as property manager on 1 November 2014, the tenancy began towards the end of 2008. Neither party was able to locate a copy of the tenancy agreement.
The tenant ([the tenant]) did not reside in the property herself but rented the property for her elderly grandparents ([tenant’s representative]’s parents), who were in their late eighties when the tenancy ended.

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 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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. 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 says that at the end of the tenancy they discovered various damage including various holes in walls and doors, and provide some photos of the damage. The landlord has produced a quote from Central Property Services Ltd in the amount of $4,427.50 to repairs as follows:
[tenant’s representative] says that: a. her father had dementia towards the end of the tenancy (which ended when her parents were relocated to a rest home) and that he was likely responsible for the damage; b. very little maintenance had been carried out on the property during the tenancy, but that when her parents moved out the family cleaned it to the satisfaction of the landlord and agreed to cover the cost of repairs, which she accepts are more than fair wear and tear, and that the amount had been agreed to be $1,420 on the basis of a quote obtained by the landlord; and c. the property is over 60 years old, and while the family are prepared to pay for the cost of repairing the damage they do not consider that they should have to pay for the full cost of brand new rimu doors and painting and renovations that the landlord would have had to do anyway after a tenancy of this duration.
[tenant’s representative] referred me to correspondence between herself and the previous property manager. That correspondence shows that the previous property manager obtained a quote to repair the damage in the amount of $1,420, and presented it to [the tenant] for confirmation, who (after an initial query) accepted the quote on 2 November 2023.
She said that she was surprised, having accepted the first quote, to receive a second quote from the previous property manager on 8 November 2023 in the amount of $4,427.50. She said that the family do not agree to pay this amount, for the reasons set out in paragraph 10(b) and (c) above. She confirmed that the family remain prepared to pay the amount of the first quote, which they consider fair and reasonable.

What compensation is the landlord entitled to?

I have considered the parties submissions, the two quotes and the correspondence carefully.
I consider that the correspondence shows that the landlord and tenant had in fact reached agreement about the costs of repairs and that the tenant should accordingly be liable for that amount ($1,420).
However even if I had not found that agreement had been reached I would not have ordered payment of the entire second quote as claimed by the landlord.
Tenant’s should only pay for the cost of repairing careless or intentional damage. 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. Deductions are often required to take into account betterment and depreciation.
This is a fairly old property that had not been renovated in at least 14 years, possibly more. I was not given any information as to the state of the property when the tenants moved in (in 2008). It is inevitable that there would have been some wear and tear to walls and doors during the tenancy and it is quite usual for a landlord to have to completely repaint the interior after a tenancy of this duration.
I consider that the tenant should only be responsible for the cost of the fixing the jib and replastering, but not the painting. While they should be responsible for the cost of repairing the doors, they should not be responsible for paying for new door hardware and doorstops, and some depreciation should be factored in as the landlord now has new doors.
Taking all these factors into account, I consider that the amount previously agreed with the tenant is reasonable and appropriate. I order payment of that amount. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord is technically the successful party as I have made an award of compensation but as the tenant had in fact already agreed to pay this amount I do not consider that the landlord is entitled to a refund of the filing fee.
The landlord is entitled to an order for name suppression but in the circumstances I consider that the tenant’s name should also be suppressed as the tenant had in fact accepted payment of the amount ordered.
The parties’ names will be removed from the published order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4773943 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 1216 New North Road, Mount Albert, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4773943 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2, 1216 New North Road, Mount Albert, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

What compensation is the landlord entitled to?

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?

What compensation is the landlord entitled to?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions