What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4841600 about?

The tribunal order states: Jordan Motu and Asia Martin must pay [The landlord/s] $356.00 to be deducted

How much money was awarded in case 4841600?

Property Damage: $356.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4841600?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4841600?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10216669-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4841600 about?

The tribunal order states: Jordan Motu and Asia Martin must pay [The landlord/s] $356.00 to be deducted

How much money was awarded in case 4841600?

Property Damage: $356.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4841600?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4841600?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10216669-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

22 Smiths Avenue, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4841600 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4841600 — net $356.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Door replacement	$356.00	Repairs: Door replacement
Net award	$356.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$356.00

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. There were no contact numbers available for the tenants.

This tenancy ended on 20 July 2020. I was satisfied, given the circumstances and efforts made by the landlord to contact the tenant, to dispense with the requirement for service and proceed as if the notice or any other document had been served on the party in accordance with s91B(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Act.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond. The initial claim was $1437.50 however this has been reduced to $356.00.

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 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.

During the tenancy there was considerable damage caused but in particular the front door was smashed in and required replacement together with the locks. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. This damage could only have been caused intentionally.

The amounts ordered are proved. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.

The landlord applied for suppression and, as it has been wholly successful, this is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4841600 — net $356.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Door replacement	$356.00	Repairs: Door replacement
Net award	$356.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$356.00

Order

Jordan Motu and Asia Martin must pay [The landlord/s] $356.00 to be deducted from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, conducted via teleconference. There were no contact numbers available for the tenants.
This tenancy ended on 20 July 2020. I was satisfied, given the circumstances and efforts made by the landlord to contact the tenant, to dispense with the requirement for service and proceed as if the notice or any other document had been served on the party in accordance with s91B(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Act.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond. The initial claim was $1437.50 however this has been reduced to $356.00.

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 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.
During the tenancy there was considerable damage caused but in particular the front door was smashed in and required replacement together with the locks. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. This damage could only have been caused intentionally.
The amounts ordered are proved. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
The landlord applied for suppression and, as it has been wholly successful, this is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4841600 — Property damage at 22 Smiths Avenue, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4841600 — Property damage at 22 Smiths Avenue, Papakura, Papakura 2110

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