What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4839985 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4839985?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $416.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839985?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839985?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10575670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4839985 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4839985?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $416.22 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4839985?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4839985?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10575670-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15A Akehurst Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4839985 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4839985. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Guttering repair	$416.22		Guttering repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.
[The tenants] must pay [The landlord/s] $436.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

All the parties attended the hearing.
[The landlord] applies for compensation for a dented gutter.

Are the tenants liable for the cost to repair the gutter?

To succeed in a damage claim, the landlord must prove that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenants must prove that neither they nor any person on the premises with their permission, carelessly caused or permitted the damage. 1
The landlord proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy. He submitted photographs on his telephone that showed the guttering was not damaged at the beginning of the tenancy but had been damaged by the day after the tenancy ended. 2
Unfortunately, it took the landlord several months to realise the guttering had been damaged. It was only after he noticed the damage and reviewed the tenancy exit photographs that he appreciated the damage had occurred during the tenancy.
The damage shown in the photographs appears to have been caused by blunt force impact, probably on a single occasion. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The onus of proof shifts to the tenants to prove on the balance of probabilities that neither they nor their welcome visitors carelessly caused the damage.
The guttering is over two metres off the ground. A potential mechanism damage is a tall vehicle such as a truck reversing into the guttering. It would be an easy miscalculation for the driver to make because the guttering protrudes from garage door, and the driver’s attention might be on the garage door rather than the guttering.
The damage ipso facto (by its very existence) was probably caused carelessly. Reversing a vehicle into the guttering, for example, would be careless. It is difficult to imagine scenarios where such damage was not caused by human error involving a person acting less than prudently. The tenants have not provided a likely scenario in which the damage could be caused absent of careless human error.
That being so, the tenants need to prove that it is more likely than not that someone else other than they or their guests caused the damage.
The tenants are confident they did not cause the damage. They would have known if they had. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), ss 49B(1), and 41. 2 The landlord later emailed the images through to the Tribunal.
The tenants submitted the damage may have been caused by couriers who mistakenly delivered the landlord’s goods to the address. That occurred on one occasion while they were home, and there may have been mistaken attempted deliveries to the landlord to the premises on other occasions when they were out.
The tenants cannot otherwise recall a situation that may have caused the damage, such as a guest driving a tall vehicle near the guttering or receiving a courier driver delivery.
The tenants are understandably disappointed that this claim was delayed some nine months after the tenancy had ended. When the tenancy ended, the tenants did an exit inspection with the landlord and none of them noticed the damage. They are not worried about the monetary amount claimed – it is not a large amount for them. But is galling that the landlord has re-entered their lives in these circumstances, like a bad smell. They previously paid $500.00 to the landlord in good faith for another matter for which they were not to blame. They now regret their generosity in doing so.
I accept the tenants’ evidence that they did not personally cause the guttering damage and that they have no knowledge of how the damage was caused. Nor did they even know the damage had occurred during their tenancy until the landlord’s unwelcome reappearance in their lives.
Unfortunately for the tenants, I am not satisfied that it is more probable than not that someone other than a person on the premises with the tenants’ consent caused the damage to the guttering. In other words, I find it more probable than not that a visitor of theirs caused the damage.
As mentioned, it is not likely the damage could have been caused if due care had been taken.
It follows, I must find against the tenants.
The landlord has proved his case.
I accept the landlord’s quote for the damage is reasonable and that the landlord will have the necessary repair work done. Filing fee
I must order the tenants to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee because the landlord has wholly succeeded in the claim. 3 3 RTA, s 102(4). Non-publication
The landlord seeks an order suppressing his name.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 4
The landlord has succeeded in the claim. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified by the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances.
The Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that any identifying particulars of any party not be published. 5
I found the landlord’s case against the tenants proven, but the tenants did nothing wrong. Publication could adversely affect them if they choose to rent in future. Having regard to the public interest and the interests of the parties it is appropriate to order non-publication.
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the parties’ names.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4839985. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Guttering repair	$416.22		Guttering repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.
[The tenants] must pay [The landlord/s] $436.66 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

All the parties attended the hearing.
[The landlord] applies for compensation for a dented gutter.

Are the tenants liable for the cost to repair the gutter?

To succeed in a damage claim, the landlord must prove that the damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenants must prove that neither they nor any person on the premises with their permission, carelessly caused or permitted the damage. 1
The landlord proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy. He submitted photographs on his telephone that showed the guttering was not damaged at the beginning of the tenancy but had been damaged by the day after the tenancy ended. 2
Unfortunately, it took the landlord several months to realise the guttering had been damaged. It was only after he noticed the damage and reviewed the tenancy exit photographs that he appreciated the damage had occurred during the tenancy.
The damage shown in the photographs appears to have been caused by blunt force impact, probably on a single occasion. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The onus of proof shifts to the tenants to prove on the balance of probabilities that neither they nor their welcome visitors carelessly caused the damage.
The guttering is over two metres off the ground. A potential mechanism damage is a tall vehicle such as a truck reversing into the guttering. It would be an easy miscalculation for the driver to make because the guttering protrudes from garage door, and the driver’s attention might be on the garage door rather than the guttering.
The damage ipso facto (by its very existence) was probably caused carelessly. Reversing a vehicle into the guttering, for example, would be careless. It is difficult to imagine scenarios where such damage was not caused by human error involving a person acting less than prudently. The tenants have not provided a likely scenario in which the damage could be caused absent of careless human error.
That being so, the tenants need to prove that it is more likely than not that someone else other than they or their guests caused the damage.
The tenants are confident they did not cause the damage. They would have known if they had. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), ss 49B(1), and 41. 2 The landlord later emailed the images through to the Tribunal.
The tenants submitted the damage may have been caused by couriers who mistakenly delivered the landlord’s goods to the address. That occurred on one occasion while they were home, and there may have been mistaken attempted deliveries to the landlord to the premises on other occasions when they were out.
The tenants cannot otherwise recall a situation that may have caused the damage, such as a guest driving a tall vehicle near the guttering or receiving a courier driver delivery.
The tenants are understandably disappointed that this claim was delayed some nine months after the tenancy had ended. When the tenancy ended, the tenants did an exit inspection with the landlord and none of them noticed the damage. They are not worried about the monetary amount claimed – it is not a large amount for them. But is galling that the landlord has re-entered their lives in these circumstances, like a bad smell. They previously paid $500.00 to the landlord in good faith for another matter for which they were not to blame. They now regret their generosity in doing so.
I accept the tenants’ evidence that they did not personally cause the guttering damage and that they have no knowledge of how the damage was caused. Nor did they even know the damage had occurred during their tenancy until the landlord’s unwelcome reappearance in their lives.
Unfortunately for the tenants, I am not satisfied that it is more probable than not that someone other than a person on the premises with the tenants’ consent caused the damage to the guttering. In other words, I find it more probable than not that a visitor of theirs caused the damage.
As mentioned, it is not likely the damage could have been caused if due care had been taken.
It follows, I must find against the tenants.
The landlord has proved his case.
I accept the landlord’s quote for the damage is reasonable and that the landlord will have the necessary repair work done. Filing fee
I must order the tenants to reimburse the landlord for the filing fee because the landlord has wholly succeeded in the claim. 3 3 RTA, s 102(4). Non-publication
The landlord seeks an order suppressing his name.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 4
The landlord has succeeded in the claim. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified by the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances.
The Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that any identifying particulars of any party not be published. 5
I found the landlord’s case against the tenants proven, but the tenants did nothing wrong. Publication could adversely affect them if they choose to rent in future. Having regard to the public interest and the interests of the parties it is appropriate to order non-publication.
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the parties’ names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839985 — Property damage at 15A Akehurst Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4839985 — Property damage at 15A Akehurst Avenue, New Lynn, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the cost to repair the gutter?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants liable for the cost to repair the gutter?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions