What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4802258 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $514.57 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4802258?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $494.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4802258?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4802258?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10447204-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4802258 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $514.57 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4802258?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $494.13 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4802258?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4802258?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10447204-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4802258 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4802258 — net $514.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replacement vanity	$494.13	Replacement vanity
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$514.57
Bond	$514.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$514.57

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $514.57 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $514.57 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Replacement vanity$494.13 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$514.57 Bond$514.57

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 June 2024.

The landlord applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 7 February 2024.

The landlord claimed refund of the bond ($2,600.00) for the cost of repairs to interior walls ($1,605.98) exterior walls ($566.46) replacing the handle to an external door ($635.50) and replacing a bathroom vanity ($988.25). The landlord said the tenant was responsible for the damage to the premises.

I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage to the walls would have required force and was intentional. It is not suggested that the tenant directly caused the damage to the walls and doors. There is, however, an issue whether the tenant permitted the damage to be caused by someone else (Section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).

Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. Where any person intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is there, it is presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless she proves that she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises (section 41 of the Act).

The tenant said the wall and door damage were caused by her ex-partner. The Police provided information following a request under the Official Information Act. The information said the Police were called to the address on 27 December 2023 at 23:42pm “concerning argument” with an “intoxicated visitor” who had not been invited. There was reference to holes in the walls.

The tenant explained that her ex-partner tried to get in through the French doors and in doing so damaged the handle. He also threw a wooden outdoor table at the exterior cladding of the property in frustration. The man then returned to trying to force the door open. The tenant said she did not invite him in. When she realised who it was, she moved away with her friend and child to a different part of the house. Evidently, she also called the Police.

I can understand why the landlord brought the application – their property has been damaged without fault on their part. They suggested the tenant should have obtained a protection order. They trusted her and felt let down.

In my view, however, the tenant is not liable for the damage caused by her unwanted visitor. The damage was not done by the tenant or by any person in the premises with the tenant’s permission. She did not permit the damage because she did not consent to the entry. The intruder caused damage in his violent effort to enter the property. It is not established that there were further steps the tenant could reasonably have taken to prevent entry.

The tenant accepted damaging the bathroom vanity. She explained that the black smear shown on the side of the vanity was hair dye. The tenant said they were able to sand this off and it was fixed before she left. She suggested that the landlord’s photograph showed the vanity before the mark was removed, but the photograph was taken by the landlord after the tenancy had ended. The landlord said the mark did come off the vanity, but it did not look good.

The vanity would have had an economic life of about 10 years. It was about 5 years old when it was damaged. I award 50% of the replacement cost ($494.13) which is less than the insurance excess of $500.00. Filing fee and name suppression

The landlord has been partly successful and is awarded the filing fee.

The landlord requested suppression. Given that the subject-matter of the decision relates to domestic violence, I grant suppression to both parties pursuant to section 95A(4) of the Act.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4802258 — net $514.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replacement vanity	$494.13	Replacement vanity
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$514.57
Bond	$514.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$514.57

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $514.57 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $514.57 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Replacement vanity$494.13 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$514.57 Bond$514.57

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 11 June 2024.
The landlord applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy on 7 February 2024.
The landlord claimed refund of the bond ($2,600.00) for the cost of repairs to interior walls ($1,605.98) exterior walls ($566.46) replacing the handle to an external door ($635.50) and replacing a bathroom vanity ($988.25). The landlord said the tenant was responsible for the damage to the premises.
I accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage to the walls would have required force and was intentional. It is not suggested that the tenant directly caused the damage to the walls and doors. There is, however, an issue whether the tenant permitted the damage to be caused by someone else (Section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. Where any person intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is there, it is presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless she proves that she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises (section 41 of the Act).
The tenant said the wall and door damage were caused by her ex-partner. The Police provided information following a request under the Official Information Act. The information said the Police were called to the address on 27 December 2023 at 23:42pm “concerning argument” with an “intoxicated visitor” who had not been invited. There was reference to holes in the walls.
The tenant explained that her ex-partner tried to get in through the French doors and in doing so damaged the handle. He also threw a wooden outdoor table at the exterior cladding of the property in frustration. The man then returned to trying to force the door open. The tenant said she did not invite him in. When she realised who it was, she moved away with her friend and child to a different part of the house. Evidently, she also called the Police.
I can understand why the landlord brought the application – their property has been damaged without fault on their part. They suggested the tenant should have obtained a protection order. They trusted her and felt let down.
In my view, however, the tenant is not liable for the damage caused by her unwanted visitor. The damage was not done by the tenant or by any person in the premises with the tenant’s permission. She did not permit the damage because she did not consent to the entry. The intruder caused damage in his violent effort to enter the property. It is not established that there were further steps the tenant could reasonably have taken to prevent entry.
The tenant accepted damaging the bathroom vanity. She explained that the black smear shown on the side of the vanity was hair dye. The tenant said they were able to sand this off and it was fixed before she left. She suggested that the landlord’s photograph showed the vanity before the mark was removed, but the photograph was taken by the landlord after the tenancy had ended. The landlord said the mark did come off the vanity, but it did not look good.
The vanity would have had an economic life of about 10 years. It was about 5 years old when it was damaged. I award 50% of the replacement cost ($494.13) which is less than the insurance excess of $500.00. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord has been partly successful and is awarded the filing fee.
The landlord requested suppression. Given that the subject-matter of the decision relates to domestic violence, I grant suppression to both parties pursuant to section 95A(4) of the Act.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4802258 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4802258 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions