What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4814885?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,100.00 (3465295-006) to Leanne

How much money was awarded in case 4814885?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; French Doors: $2,894.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4814885?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4814885?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10363301-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4814885?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,100.00 (3465295-006) to Leanne

How much money was awarded in case 4814885?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; French Doors: $2,894.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4814885?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4814885?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10363301-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

204 Ormond Road, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4814885 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4814885. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: French doors	$2,894.50		Repairs: French doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4814885. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: French doors	$2,894.50		Repairs: French doors
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,100.00 (3465295-006) to Leanne Hammond, Andrew Craig Hammond and Jared Robert Gillies immediately.
Tori Maurirere and Hylam Tukariri are to pay Leanne Hammond, Andrew Craig Hammond and Jared Robert Gillies $1,814.94 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Mrs Hammond attended the teleconference hearing on behalf of the landlord. Ms Maurirere and Mr Tukariri, the tenants, also attended the teleconference hearing. During the hearing, Ms Maurirere said she and Mr Tukariri were at the hospital dealing with a health issue, waiting to see a doctor. However, Ms Maurirere said she wished to proceed with the teleconference hearing. Both tenants participated in the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation/damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord claimed for replacement of an air conditioner remote control by the tenants but withdrew this claim at the start of the hearing.
The landlord maintained that the tenants damaged some French doors during the tenancy. The landlord believed the tenants had a dog at the property, contrary to the Tenancy Agreement, which had likely been kept inside and which had chewed the wooden panels of the French doors. The landlord said the door handle was also broken and unable to be repaired or secure the doors. Mrs Hammond indicated that the French doors were fine and the door handle and locks at the top and bottom of the doors were in good order at the start of the tenancy but not when the tenants left.
Ms Maurirere denied that they had a dog at the property but acknowledged that the French doors were old but were fine at the start of the tenancy. She said the wooden panel ‘chewing’ was not there when they moved in. Ms Maurirere said that the door handle and being able to close the door was a big issue during the tenancy, as they found it difficult to close those doors and sometimes had to force it closed. This was backed up by witness statements of two others who spent time at the property with the tenants during the tenancy and confirmed the French doors were difficult to close and were problematic. Ms Maurirere said they had to repair the door handle several times during the tenancy and eventually the door handle was unrepairable because of this. However, she acknowledged that they never spoke with the landlord about this, as they thought they would just repair the door handle and carry on. Ms Maurirere said she did not know what caused the chewing type damage to the wooden panel of the doors. She indicated there were stray cats that would get in through windows they left open and that there were multiple toddlers at the property at that time. Ms Maurirere confirmed that the chewing type damage to the wooden panel of the doors likely occurred during the tenancy. She believed the damage to the doors and door handle was only fair wear and tear, however.
Mrs Hammond said she had seen a dog bowl at the property, as well as a chain between trees to restrain a dog and that the house smelled of dog. Whilst she had not seen a dog there, she surmised there was a dog at the property from the other items she viewed and smelled there.
The landlord’s property inspection report dated 11 February 2023 noted the damage to the wooden panels of the doors, likely from being chewed by a dog, and the broken door handle that was unable to secure the door. Mrs Hammond said the tenants were not present during the inspection. She thought the issues may have been brought to the tenants’ attention in a Notice to remedy dated 20 March 2023.
Ms Maurirere asked to leave the tenancy to care for family. She said her tenancy ended on 7 March 2023. Mrs Hammond thought Ms Maurirere’s tenancy ended around 10 March 2023. Mr Tukariri remained as a tenant, until 20 March 2023, when the landlord texted him to check whether he wished to leave the tenancy and he said he did. A new tenant had joined the tenancy after Ms Maurirere left and whilst Mr Tukariri was still a tenant. The new tenant was a friend of Ms Maurirere.
The landlord noted the damage to the door on 11 February 2023, before either tenant left the tenancy and before the new tenant came into the tenancy. As such, I find it likely the damage was caused during the tenancy.
Ms Maurirere returned to the property, after receiving the landlord’s Notice to remedy, and tried to repair the door with plaster. She said she had initially been supervised by a relative who worked in construction, who then left her unsupervised. She said she was then told by the new tenant not to bother finishing the repairs as the landlord would just take the bond anyway to cover it. Ms Maurirere said the repairs were then left unfinished by her. She said she had considered using a professional tradesperson to do the repairs but that it was hard to find one available.
The landlord provided photographs of the damage to the wooden panels on the doors and to the door handle. Mrs Hammond also provided photographs of the doors with the plaster, or builder’s bog, used by the tenants on the doors. It is clear from the photographs provided that the damage to the door handle, with a large piece of the side of the door missing and the brass lock panel visible, that the damage to the door handle area of the door, and the chewed looking wooden panel on the door, was more than fair wear and tear. The plaster put onto the doors was also clearly not done professionally, and would not have been able to be left in its unfinished state of repair. The landlord said the doors as left by the tenants, could not be repaired further but had to be replaced.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
Given the photographs of the French doors and door handle and the size of the missing piece and level of damage, as well as the chewed nature of the wooden panel on the doors, I find this damage is likely intentional damage. The tenants acknowledged the door handle was forced and repeatedly repaired by them, without them informing the landlord. Damage is intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty, as outlined above.
As the damage is intentional on the part of the tenants, the tenants are liable for the full replacement cost minus any depreciation. The cap in section 49B RTA does not apply here. The total cost to supply and install new French doors was $4,320.14, which I find is a reasonable cost to replace the French doors. Mrs Hammond said she elected to have aluminium French door replacements as they were a much cheaper option, as the other options would have cost around $6,000.00.
In determining the compensation payable, depreciation must be taken into account. Depreciation is linked to the concept of betterment. Everything is subject to wear and tear and will need to be replaced in time. Where an item has to be replaced as a result of tenant damage, this hastens the process. If the damaged item is replaced with a ‘better’ item, compensation is adjusted to reflect that. A landlord should not be placed in a better position following a claim in the Tribunal than the landlord would have been if the damage had not occurred.
In relation to the French exterior doors, the landlord estimated they were around 10 years old. Current depreciation guidelines estimate French exterior doors such as these in rental properties to last around 30 years. Thus, I deduct the $4,320.14 cost to supply and install new French doors by 33% for depreciation to an award of $2,894.50.
The amounts ordered are proved. Refund of the bond
The landlord applied for refund of the bond of $1,100.00. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,100.00 (#3465295-006) to Leanne Hammond, Andrew Craig Hammond and Jared Robert Gillies immediately. Filing fee
Because Leanne Hammond, Andrew Craig Hammond has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
Neither the landlord nor Ms Maurirere requested suppression. Mr Tukariri requested suppression. However, as the tenants have not been successful with the claim, nor was there any evidence provided of whether Mr Tukariri’s interests outweigh any public interest in publishing his name, I do not grant name suppression to Mr Tukariri.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4814885 — Property damage at 204 Ormond Road, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4814885 — Property damage at 204 Ormond Road, Mangapapa, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions