What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4838261 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Julie Thomas and Sean Thomas $15.77 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4838261?

Cat Flap: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $352.80 awarded to landlord; Window Stays: $42.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838261?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10366494-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4838261 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Julie Thomas and Sean Thomas $15.77 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4838261?

Cat Flap: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $352.80 awarded to landlord; Window Stays: $42.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4838261?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4838261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10366494-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 73 Milton Road, Bluff Hill, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4838261 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4838261 — net $15.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cat flap	$100.00		Cat flap
Repair deck	$352.80		Repair deck
Window stays	$42.53		Window stays
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Minus: Bond paid to landlord		$500.00	Minus: Bond paid to landlord
Total award	$515.77	$500.00
Net award	$15.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15.77

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlords were represented by Ms Thomas.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation 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.

When the tenancy ended in January 2024, the parties discussed some items of damage the landlord was concerned about.

The tenant requested release of the bond to her, to help her secure new accommodation. An email from her to the landlord notes, “I’ve given consent with all goodwill for an amount to be withheld for replacing a section of two decking planks and a new pane of glass as per our agreement on installation of cat flap. There should not come to more than 2 or 3 hundred dollars at the most. With that in mind please deposit the balance of [the bond] to my account. Anything left over from making good the window and deck board sections can be forwarded as soon as the work is completed”

It was agreed that from the bond, $500.00 would be paid to the landlords and the balance paid to the tenant. The bond has been distributed accordingly.

There is no dispute that the landlord should be reimbursed $100.00 for the cost of the glass replacement from the cat flap.

There is no dispute that in two bedrooms a window stay on each the windows, which had been there at the start of the tenancy, was not there at the end of the tenancy. The tenant says that they constantly stuck and so were removed and were probably left at the premises when she moved out. Nevertheless the landlord was entitled to have the those stays reinstated and so is entitled to be reimbursed the replacement cost, which is proved by the invoices provided.

The tenant does not dispute that decking timber was accidentally damaged by embers falling out of a brazier. The tenant does however dispute the amount of compensation amount claimed.

The landlord arranged for a quote to be obtained for the repair work. The initial quote was for $575.57 plus GST. The work quoted for involved the replacement of 5 lengths of decking timber. The amount paid by the landlords when the work was complete was a little less, $511.31 plus GST.

Ms Thomas says that she did not instruct the builder what work to do, simply to repair decking timbers that had been burned. There was no further discussion at that point with the tenant about the need for five rather than two lengths of decking to be replaced.

I have considered the photographic evidence provided by the landlord and also photographs of the deck on the tenant’s phone.

The photographs show some areas where burn damage can clearly be identified. Three of the decking planks are affected by that damage.

Other planks have small marks highlighted by the landlord. However, from the photographic evidence, which is all the Tribunal has to go on, it is not clear whether, as a landlord says, those marks are a small burn marks or whether, as the tenant contends, they are knots or mould stains, like others that are apparent across the deck.

It is for the landlord to prove that damage occurred during the tenancy. I do not find it proved on the balance of probabilities that those other two decking planks were damaged during the tendency so as to require replacement.

The tenant also says that the whole of those planks did not need to be replaced and that replacing shorter sections, to the next joist, would have been sufficient. Ms Thomas says that the builder explained that would not be a satisfactory repair because, as I understand her evidence, those cut planks could not adequately be fixed to the joists and would buckle and lift.

Without evidence, I cannot find that the builder’s view about what was required to adequately repair the damage, was not appropriate.

Having found it proved that the need to replace three of the five decking planks resulted from damage the tenant was responsible for, I find the tenant should be required to pay 3/5 of the total invoice.

Because the landlords have had claims upheld I reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4838261 — net $15.77 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cat flap	$100.00		Cat flap
Repair deck	$352.80		Repair deck
Window stays	$42.53		Window stays
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement
Minus: Bond paid to landlord		$500.00	Minus: Bond paid to landlord
Total award	$515.77	$500.00
Net award	$15.77
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15.77

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Julie Thomas and Sean Thomas $15.77 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlords were represented by Ms Thomas.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation 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.
When the tenancy ended in January 2024, the parties discussed some items of damage the landlord was concerned about.
The tenant requested release of the bond to her, to help her secure new accommodation. An email from her to the landlord notes, “I’ve given consent with all goodwill for an amount to be withheld for replacing a section of two decking planks and a new pane of glass as per our agreement on installation of cat flap. There should not come to more than 2 or 3 hundred dollars at the most. With that in mind please deposit the balance of [the bond] to my account. Anything left over from making good the window and deck board sections can be forwarded as soon as the work is completed”
It was agreed that from the bond, $500.00 would be paid to the landlords and the balance paid to the tenant. The bond has been distributed accordingly.
There is no dispute that the landlord should be reimbursed $100.00 for the cost of the glass replacement from the cat flap.
There is no dispute that in two bedrooms a window stay on each the windows, which had been there at the start of the tenancy, was not there at the end of the tenancy. The tenant says that they constantly stuck and so were removed and were probably left at the premises when she moved out. Nevertheless the landlord was entitled to have the those stays reinstated and so is entitled to be reimbursed the replacement cost, which is proved by the invoices provided.
The tenant does not dispute that decking timber was accidentally damaged by embers falling out of a brazier. The tenant does however dispute the amount of compensation amount claimed.
The landlord arranged for a quote to be obtained for the repair work. The initial quote was for $575.57 plus GST. The work quoted for involved the replacement of 5 lengths of decking timber. The amount paid by the landlords when the work was complete was a little less, $511.31 plus GST.
Ms Thomas says that she did not instruct the builder what work to do, simply to repair decking timbers that had been burned. There was no further discussion at that point with the tenant about the need for five rather than two lengths of decking to be replaced.
I have considered the photographic evidence provided by the landlord and also photographs of the deck on the tenant’s phone.
The photographs show some areas where burn damage can clearly be identified. Three of the decking planks are affected by that damage.
Other planks have small marks highlighted by the landlord. However, from the photographic evidence, which is all the Tribunal has to go on, it is not clear whether, as a landlord says, those marks are a small burn marks or whether, as the tenant contends, they are knots or mould stains, like others that are apparent across the deck.
It is for the landlord to prove that damage occurred during the tenancy. I do not find it proved on the balance of probabilities that those other two decking planks were damaged during the tendency so as to require replacement.
The tenant also says that the whole of those planks did not need to be replaced and that replacing shorter sections, to the next joist, would have been sufficient. Ms Thomas says that the builder explained that would not be a satisfactory repair because, as I understand her evidence, those cut planks could not adequately be fixed to the joists and would buckle and lift.
Without evidence, I cannot find that the builder’s view about what was required to adequately repair the damage, was not appropriate.
Having found it proved that the need to replace three of the five decking planks resulted from damage the tenant was responsible for, I find the tenant should be required to pay 3/5 of the total invoice.
Because the landlords have had claims upheld I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838261 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 73 Milton Road, Bluff Hill, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4838261 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 73 Milton Road, Bluff Hill, Napier 4110

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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