How much money was awarded in case 4809997?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Premises not in a reas…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Nail And Glue On The Walls And Ceili…: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $21.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4809997?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4809997?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11540730-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4809997?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: Premises not in a reas…: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Nail And Glue On The Walls And Ceili…: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $21.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4809997?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4809997?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11540730-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4809997 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4809997 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4809997 — net $1,231.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$21.04		3. The landlord made an application to the Tribunal for water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filin…
Cleaning	$460.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00		Carpet Cleaning
Nail and glue on the walls and ceiling	$400.00		Nail and glue on the walls and ceiling
Carpet insurance excess	$1,100.00		Carpet insurance excess
Compensation: Premises not in a reasonable state		$1,000.00	Premises not in a reasonable state
Total award	$2,231.04	$1,000.00
Net award	$1,231.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,231.04

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties.

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,231.04 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,231.04 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,968.96 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 10 th June 2024, 31 st July 2024 and 15 th November 2024.

The tenancy was at new build property and was from 25 th April 2022 until 20 th December 2023.

The landlord made an application to the Tribunal for water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant made a cross-application for refund of the bond, compensation for damaged goods and exemplary damages.

I deal with the landlord’s application first. Uncontested claims

The landlord sought $21.04 as the final water rates arrears. The tenant did not dispute amount.

The tenant did not contest the cleaning costs of $460.00 and carpet cleaning cost of $250.00.

Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay the amounts to the landlord. Law regarding damage claims

To succeed with damage claims, the 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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

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. 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. 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 4809997, 49142733 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. Damage to ground floor

The landlord sought insurance excess of $550.00 for damage to the ground floor. The tenant said that the damage was from the Auckland flooding from 27 th January 2023.

The tenant said that the ground floor had flooded due to a builder’s plastic that had not been removed blocking the manhole outside located underneath the deck. The tenant had photo evidence to support this.

When the ground floor flooded, the tenant contacted the landlord and the landlord had brought around a dehumidifier.

The landlord disputed that the flooding affected the house and said perhaps the tenant’s fish tank fell causing water damage to the ground floor. The landlord said that the insurance assessors came around and inspected the house for moisture but could not find any issues.

Although the landlord thought there had been a fish tank, it turned out that it was an enclosure for a lizard and that there was no water there.

The tenant firmly maintained that the ground floor flooded due to the landlord’s builder not having removed the builder’s plastic and that was the basis for filing her cross-application seeking compensation for her furniture that had been ruined when the Auckland floods occurred.

I do not find that the landlord has proven that the tenant has caused damages to the ground floor. On the contrary, I find that the tenant’s explanation about the ground floor being flooded is well backed up with photos and the fact that her furniture was ruined together with the landlord admitting having provided the tenant with a dehumidifier when she was notified.

This claim is dismissed. Insurance excess for upstairs carpets

The landlord sought three insurance excess fees for the damages to the carpet upstairs. The landlord said that the carpet required replacing due to the tenant’s misuse. 4809997, 49142734

The tenant said that the upstairs bathroom flooded due to shower wall waterproofing issue and water leaked to the hallway carpet.

The tenant said that water was leaking through the light sockets. The tenant had a witness statement to support this.

The landlord also had a statement from a plumber who had tested the lights to see if there were any issues or evidence of it having leaked but had found nothing wrong.

In addition to the bathroom flooding, there were damages done to the carpet that were more than fair wear and tear.

I find that the landlord has proven that the tenant has caused damage to the carpets and award two out of three insurance excess fees. However, I do not find that the landlord has proven the claim regarding the water leak. It is finely balanced and I do not find that it has been proven to the required standard.

Therefore I order the tenant to pay 2 out of the 3 excesses only. Nails and glue on the walls and ceiling

The landlord sought $600.00 for the damage caused by nails and glue on the walls and ceiling.

The landlord provided photos and an invoice to prove this claim.

Having seen the photos, I find that the landlord has proven this claim.

In relation to the amount, I find that an adjusted of $400.00 would be reasonable.

I order the tenant to pay this amount to the landlord. Door stoppers, back gate door lock and shower head

The landlord sought $250.00 installing 10 door stoppers, fixing back door lock and fixing the shower head.

From the photos provided, it seemed that some of the door stoppers had rubber missing and the shower head had a button that became loose. The back door gate lock had been replaced with a different one.

The tenant said that the back door gate lock had snapped of due to being rusty and they replaced it with a better back door gate lock on it.

I do not find that any of these were damaged intentionally or carelessly by the tenant.

This claim is dismissed. 4809997, 49142735 Exemplary damages

The landlord had sought $500.00 as exemplary damages for the damages to the walls and ceilings and $1,000.00 as exemplary damages for damages caused by the tenant’s pets.

However, they are not “unlawful act” claims for which exemplary damages can be granted.

Therefore, the claim for exemplary damages is dismissed. The tenant’s cross-application

Now I turn to consider the tenant’s cross-application for refund of the bond, compensation for damaged goods and exemplary damages. Compensation for damaged goods

The tenant said that her belongings on the ground floor became damaged when the Auckland flooding occurred.

Ordinarily, the onus is on the tenant to have the tenant’s belongings insured for weather events and the landlord would not be liable.

In this case, there is evidence that the ground floor had flooded due to a builder’s plastic having blocked the drainage.

The tenant also said that water had been coming out from light fittings and that in September 2023 water was pouring out from the central vacuum vents.

I accept that the tenant’s belongings had been water damaged due to the builder’s plastic. I accept that the ground floor would not have flooded if the builder’s plastic had not been blocking the manhole beneath the deck.

I find that the new built premises was not in a reasonable state with that alone.

I order the landlord to compensate the tenant $1,000.00 for not providing the premises in a reasonable state.

Not providing the premises in a reasonable state is 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) RTA.

In this case, I do not order any additional exemplary damages as I do not find that the landlord had intentionally failed to provide the premises in a reasonable state. 4809997, 49142736 Filing fee reimbursement

As neither party have wholly nor substantially succeeded with their claims, I do not order the filing fee to be reimbursed. They are to lie where they fall.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4809997 — net $1,231.04 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$21.04		3. The landlord made an application to the Tribunal for water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filin…
Cleaning	$460.00		Cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$250.00		Carpet Cleaning
Nail and glue on the walls and ceiling	$400.00		Nail and glue on the walls and ceiling
Carpet insurance excess	$1,100.00		Carpet insurance excess
Compensation: Premises not in a reasonable state		$1,000.00	Premises not in a reasonable state
Total award	$2,231.04	$1,000.00
Net award	$1,231.04
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,231.04