What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4850581 about?

The tribunal order states: Sheng-Yin Kai must pay [the tenants] $687.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4850581?

Property Damage: $667.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4850581?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4850581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10575348-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4850581 about?

The tribunal order states: Sheng-Yin Kai must pay [the tenants] $687.44 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4850581?

Property Damage: $667.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4850581?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4850581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10575348-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4850581 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4850581 — net $687.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: (reimbursement of carpet repair costs	$667.00	(reimbursement of carpet repair costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$687.44
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$687.44

Order

Sheng-Yin Kai must pay [the tenants] $687.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [the tenants] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Are the tenants’ 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 landlord claims the tenant damaged the carpet in a ground floor bedroom, that this damage was caused by the tenants during the tenancy as a result of their intentional or careless acts or omissions and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. As a result, the landlord has refused to refund the tenants’ bond.
The tenants have disproved liability for the damage because they have proven: a. The entry inspection report and photographs show there were stains and marks on the carpet in this bedroom. It was not pristine at the start of the tenancy; b. The house was built in the 1980’s and the carpet if it has ever been replaced it was some time ago and is aged and any replacement cost would need to be significantly depreciated; c. There have been several leaks in the house. The first was on 19 November 2022 where the window in the main bedroom leaked, the dining room window also leaked and a lot of water poured into the house and on the carpet and there was a significant pool of water that remained in the backyard that did not drain away due to drainage issues. The ground level bedroom is adjacent to the backyard that held significant amounts of water for a reasonable period after the wet weather event on 19 November 2022 and could have seeping to the walls of the house. On 27 January 2023 there were further leaks in the tenant’s daughter’s bedroom and the back yard. The tenants say the landlord had the guttering cleaned out after the November 2022 incident but the guttering in the house is not sufficient to deal with the volumes of water created by the weather events. In addition, the tenants say there are drainage issues in the backyard that have not been addressed and result in the yard flooding whenever there is heavy rain. The tenants have provided photographs and videos of the extensive flooding in the dining room, the main bedroom, his daughter’s bedroom and the back yard; d. The tenants say they first became aware of the carpet in the downstairs bedroom being damp, mouldy and breaking down on 1 March 2024. They do not use that bedroom and rarely went into it during the tenancy. They suspect the 27 January 2023 weather event may have led to dampness in the wall and under the flooring that manifested itself as mould under the carpet after being left damp for so long; e. They took steps to have the carpets professionally cleaned and the carpet repaired after the landlord raised concerns with them, despite there being no evidence the damage was because of any intentional or careless acts or omissions by the tenants.
The tenants have also explained to me that the landlord did nothing to dry out the wet carpet, underlay and floorboards or walls after the November 2022 flood and after the January 2023 flooding event they were only given a dehumidifier for a few days. Consequently, they say they have had to live in damp, wet, mouldy conditions. They had tried to dry the carpet out from above as best they could but could not adequately dry out the underlay and floorboards or gib board walls.
I am satisfied the damage to the carpet in the downstairs bedroom is not attributable to intentional or careless acts or omissions by the tenants and that they are not responsible for the damage or for any costs of repairing such damage.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for a hold over the bond to pay for the costs of re- carpeting the downstairs bedroom and award the tenants reimbursement/compensation for the costs they paid to have the carpet repaired.
During the hearing, the tenants stated they would like to make a claim for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premise to a reasonable standard. Particluarly in relation to the landlord’s lack of adequate response to the flood damage and investigation and repair of the causes of the flood damage. I was unable to consider these claims during the hearing as they were not part of the tenants application and the landlord needs time to consider and respond to these failure to maintain claims. The tenants have been advised that this Order does not prevent them from making another application for the compensation and exemplary damages they seek in relation to the landlord’s alleged failure to maintain the premise in accordance with her obligations set out in s45(1)(b) of the RTA. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because [the applicants] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their name and identifying details.
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 tenants have substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4850581 — net $687.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: (reimbursement of carpet repair costs	$667.00	(reimbursement of carpet repair costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$687.44
Bond	$3,120.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$687.44

Order

Sheng-Yin Kai must pay [the tenants] $687.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [the tenants] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Are the tenants’ 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 landlord claims the tenant damaged the carpet in a ground floor bedroom, that this damage was caused by the tenants during the tenancy as a result of their intentional or careless acts or omissions and that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. As a result, the landlord has refused to refund the tenants’ bond.
The tenants have disproved liability for the damage because they have proven: a. The entry inspection report and photographs show there were stains and marks on the carpet in this bedroom. It was not pristine at the start of the tenancy; b. The house was built in the 1980’s and the carpet if it has ever been replaced it was some time ago and is aged and any replacement cost would need to be significantly depreciated; c. There have been several leaks in the house. The first was on 19 November 2022 where the window in the main bedroom leaked, the dining room window also leaked and a lot of water poured into the house and on the carpet and there was a significant pool of water that remained in the backyard that did not drain away due to drainage issues. The ground level bedroom is adjacent to the backyard that held significant amounts of water for a reasonable period after the wet weather event on 19 November 2022 and could have seeping to the walls of the house. On 27 January 2023 there were further leaks in the tenant’s daughter’s bedroom and the back yard. The tenants say the landlord had the guttering cleaned out after the November 2022 incident but the guttering in the house is not sufficient to deal with the volumes of water created by the weather events. In addition, the tenants say there are drainage issues in the backyard that have not been addressed and result in the yard flooding whenever there is heavy rain. The tenants have provided photographs and videos of the extensive flooding in the dining room, the main bedroom, his daughter’s bedroom and the back yard; d. The tenants say they first became aware of the carpet in the downstairs bedroom being damp, mouldy and breaking down on 1 March 2024. They do not use that bedroom and rarely went into it during the tenancy. They suspect the 27 January 2023 weather event may have led to dampness in the wall and under the flooring that manifested itself as mould under the carpet after being left damp for so long; e. They took steps to have the carpets professionally cleaned and the carpet repaired after the landlord raised concerns with them, despite there being no evidence the damage was because of any intentional or careless acts or omissions by the tenants.
The tenants have also explained to me that the landlord did nothing to dry out the wet carpet, underlay and floorboards or walls after the November 2022 flood and after the January 2023 flooding event they were only given a dehumidifier for a few days. Consequently, they say they have had to live in damp, wet, mouldy conditions. They had tried to dry the carpet out from above as best they could but could not adequately dry out the underlay and floorboards or gib board walls.
I am satisfied the damage to the carpet in the downstairs bedroom is not attributable to intentional or careless acts or omissions by the tenants and that they are not responsible for the damage or for any costs of repairing such damage.
I dismiss the landlord’s claim for a hold over the bond to pay for the costs of re- carpeting the downstairs bedroom and award the tenants reimbursement/compensation for the costs they paid to have the carpet repaired.
During the hearing, the tenants stated they would like to make a claim for the landlord’s failure to maintain the premise to a reasonable standard. Particluarly in relation to the landlord’s lack of adequate response to the flood damage and investigation and repair of the causes of the flood damage. I was unable to consider these claims during the hearing as they were not part of the tenants application and the landlord needs time to consider and respond to these failure to maintain claims. The tenants have been advised that this Order does not prevent them from making another application for the compensation and exemplary damages they seek in relation to the landlord’s alleged failure to maintain the premise in accordance with her obligations set out in s45(1)(b) of the RTA. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because [the applicants] have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression
The tenants apply for non-publication of their name and identifying details.
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 tenants have substantially succeeded in these proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4850581 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4850581 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions