What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4854582 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay [The landlord/s] $2,093.79 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4854582?

Property Damage: $1,183.35 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4854582?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4854582?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10958900-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4854582 about?

The tribunal order states: Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay [The landlord/s] $2,093.79 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4854582?

Property Damage: $1,183.35 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $690.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4854582?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4854582?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10958900-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4854582 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4854582 — net $2,093.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement: bedrooms 1 & 2	$1,183.35	Carpet replacement: bedrooms 1 & 2
Repairs to floor - living room	$550.00	Repairs to floor - living room
Repairs to walls – living room	$550.00	Repairs to walls – living room
Repairs to walls - kitchen	$550.00	Repairs to walls - kitchen
Repairs to walls - bedroom 2	$550.00	Repairs to walls - bedroom 2
Rubbish removal for repairs	$690.00	Rubbish removal for repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,093.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,093.79

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4854582 — net $2,093.79 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet replacement: bedrooms 1 & 2	$1,183.35	Carpet replacement: bedrooms 1 & 2
Repairs to floor - living room	$550.00	Repairs to floor - living room
Repairs to walls – living room	$550.00	Repairs to walls – living room
Repairs to walls - kitchen	$550.00	Repairs to walls - kitchen
Repairs to walls - bedroom 2	$550.00	Repairs to walls - bedroom 2
Rubbish removal for repairs	$690.00	Rubbish removal for repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,093.79
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,093.79

Order

Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited must pay [The landlord/s] $2,093.79 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Meita Fesolai and Ms Shilpa Singh appeared for the tenant, and the Tribunal was assisted by Ms Tam, interpreter. Background
The tenancy premises is a 49 year old single storey residential terraced unit. The parties entered into a residential tenancy agreement for a tenancy starting on 4 March 2022. It was initially fixed for one year, and then became periodic, ending on 27 February 2024. The rent was $520.00 per week and a bond of $2,000.00 was paid.
The agreement was signed on behalf of the owner and landlord [The landlord/s], by the landlord’s agent, [The landlord’s agent]. This agreement allowed Kāhui Tū Kaha, a social housing provider, to sublet the premises to its clients (clause 8 of the Additional Terms and Conditions). Clause 4 confirmed that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) applied to the agreement.
Clause 9 of the Additional Terms and Conditions further provides that the RTA applied to the agreement, with the exception of section 5(1)(n). Section 5(1)(n) excludes from the RTA certain agreements entered into to enable a tenant (the sublandlord) to sublet the premises under various arrangements, including to provide accommodation for people on low incomes or with special housing needs.
In view of the express term in the tenancy agreement that the RTA is to apply, I am satisfied that this tenancy is not excluded under the RTA and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this application. The landlord’s claims
The landlord has applied for compensation for tenant damage, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to walls in three areas (living room, kitchen and bedroom) and damage to carpet in two bedrooms, and damaged flooring in the living room. The landlord also seeks the rubbish removal costs associated with this work. Exemplary damages are no longer sought.
The landlord states that the tenant undertook work to repair the damage, and this resulted in further damage. The landlord’s evidence includes inspection reports completed by [The landlord’s agent], the insurance assessor’s report (adjustment summary), a report from a plumber commenting on the floor damage, and a quote from [repair services]for repair work at the premises. The tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant accepts liability for the insurance excess of $550.00 for damage to the wall in the living room. It does not accept liability for damage to the other walls (kitchen and bedroom 2).
The tenant also denies liability for replacement of the carpet in the two bedrooms, and the floor damage in the living room. Additional evidence was provided concerning the work undertaken by the tenant’s contractor, and invoices relating to other work undertaken on the premises. The tenant also submitted its own final inspection report dated 28 February 2024. Further evidence and submissions
At the hearing, the landlord submitted an additional report from the AMI insurance assessor dated 5 March 2024.
Further time was given to the tenant to comment on this report. The landlord also agreed to provide a copy of the invoice for the work undertaken, which was received.
Both parties filed final written submissions. Compensation for damage General principles regarding responsibility for damage
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage, the 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 of the RTA.
Fair wear and tear is damage caused as a result of normal, expected everyday use. This is often the result of a gradual deterioration over time.
Damage is intentional where the damage is done on purpose (the person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose), or where a person allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Careless damage is damage caused by an inadvertent lack of reasonable care.
Accidental damage, where there is no tenant liability, is damage that is greater than fair wear and tear, but could not have been reasonably prevented.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the RTA applies. 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the RTA.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, the landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage?

In this case the landlord is insured for tenant damage. The insurance excess is $550.00, as confirmed in the insurance assessor’s report. The rent for the premises is $520.00 per week.
The landlord’s evidence shows that the insurer declined cover for the carpet damage in both bedrooms, as stated in the email dated 27 March 2024. In terms of the living room floor damage, insurance has covered this damage, less the excess amount.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage comprises the following: • Carpet replacement in bedrooms 1 and 2: $2,366.70 • Floor repairs in the living room: $550.00 insurance excess • Repair of wall damage in the following rooms: ($550.00 insurance excess for each room) i. Living room – $550.00 ii. Kitchen wall - $550.00 iii. Bedroom 2 - $550.00 • Rubbish removal for the repairs: $690.00 These claims are considered in detail below. Carpet
The tenant took responsibility for the damage to the carpet in the two bedrooms, which occurred during this tenancy and is likely to have been caused by a subtenant. The information provided suggests that a subtenant was hanging washing in the bedrooms, and water was dripping onto the carpet, causing damage. So, the initial damage can be regarded as careless damage. The tenant then agreed to arrange for repairs.
The photographic evidence shows that in bedroom 1, the carpet has been replaced with a completely difference carpet. This carpet does not visually match the existing carpet in the rest of the property. The existing carpet was a light teal colour, and the replacement was a dark grey. The insurance assessor’s report also notes that a section of the flooring was uneven and depresses substantially when pressed.
The carpet in bedroom two was replaced with four separate strips of carpet that do not match, and as described in the insurance assessor’s report, was “piecemeal.” Again, the flooring was said to dip in this area. According to the insurance assessor’s report, the tenant’s contractor had made cuts to the carpet in both bedrooms, rather than uplifting to allow for work to the substrate.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the tenant is liable for the damage to the carpet in bedrooms 1 and 2. While the tenant attempted to repair this damage, the repair work was substandard, and can therefore be regarded as careless damage. The cost of the repair of the carpet was not covered by insurance, so the tenant will be liable for the replacement cost, up to four weeks rent, less depreciation.
The landlord is unsure of the age of the carpet, and has advised that it was not new when the property was purchased four years ago. The initial entry inspection report dated March 2022 notes that the carpet was in an acceptable condition, although some stains were noted in both bedrooms.
The total cost of replacing the carpet, as confirmed in the invoice supplied by the landlord, is $2,366.70. Taking into account betterment and depreciation, noting that the expected lifespan of carpet is around 10 years, I consider the tenant is liable for 50% of the replacement costs, being $1,183.35. This is awarded above. Floor
The landlord investigated the likely cause of the floor damage. The report from the plumber has ruled out plumbing issues as the cause. The email from Contact Super Plumber dated 9 May 2023 advises that the house was checked for leaks, and all water pipes were found to be watertight. The floor under the insulation was then checked, and it was found that: the floor has been stoved in from the top side of the floor. I can confirm that this is not from water damage, but can only assume the floor damage is from a blunt object with force. ...I found three areas with those impacts.
The insurance assessor’s report comments on the floor damage in the living room as follows: The hole in the living room was left untouched by the tenants' contractors, the hole remains present beside the ranchslider. The tenant advised it was leakage through the ranchslider that caused the damage but as mentioned by Super Plumber, there isn't mould present in the area to indicate long term moisture damage. Additionally, only the hole in bedroom 1 had any elevated moisture levels at the time of his assessment. The smooth edge appears unaffected and the hole isn't in the main thoroughfare but rather to the side:
I am satisfied, from the evidence, that the damage to the living room floor was likely careless or intentional, so the tenant will be liable for the cost of the repairs. In this case, the landlord seeks the insurance excess of $550.00, rather than the full cost of repairs (being $2,076.90). The amount sought by the landlord ($550.00) is awarded above. Walls
The tenant accepts liability for damage to the walls in the living room, and the landlord seeks the insurance excess of $550.00, which is awarded above.
In terms of the damage to walls in the kitchen and bedroom 2, the tenant submits that the damage described in the property assessor’s report regarding damage to the kitchen was inconsistent with the condition documented in the [The landlord’s agent]’s inspection report of 2 March 2022.
In the entry inspection report of March 2022, it is noted that the kitchen walls were in an acceptable condition, with some yellow stains. The walls in bedroom 2 were also noted to be in an acceptable condition, with “uneven colour.” In the [The landlord’s agent]’s outgoing inspection in February 2024, it is recorded that the walls in the kitchen were in an acceptable condition, with yellow stains, however, there was also note of “different painting colours” on the walls. In terms of the walls in bedroom 2, the report describes the walls to be in an acceptable condition, with an uneven colour.
So, while the walls in the kitchen and bedroom were not pristine at the start of the tenancy, and the surface was patchy in bedroom 2, there was a change to the condition of these walls during the tenancy. The change in bedroom 2 may not have been detailed in the [The landlord’s agent]’s exit report, but can be seen in the photographic evidence, and as noted in the insurance assessor’s final report.
Overall, I found the insurance assessor’s report to be detailed and thorough, and I attach significant weight to the findings. The report was completed following an onsite inspection of the premises on 5 March 2024. I note the assessor also had reference to the entry and exit inspection reports completed by [The landlord’s agent]’s, along with the regular inspection reports. The insurance assessor’s report also contains photographs which support the findings.
The assessor describes the damage in bedroom 2 as follows: ...photographs evidence a wall was impacted and substantially damaged with partial repairs undertaken. Presently the plaster applied is uneven and the painted wallpaper texture has been ruined as a result. Repairs entail stripping the wallpaper, stopping/sanding the damaged areas, wallpapering, and painting throughout the entire room to maintain a cohesive appearance.
In terms of the kitchen walls, the report states: ...many areas of thick plaster patches on one wall indicative of previous impact/dents present to the wall lining. Repairs entail stopping/sanding the damaged area and painting the affected wall to maintain a cohesive appearance.
Therefore, having considered the evidence and submissions, I find the wall damage in the kitchen and bedroom 2 is likely to be the result of careless or intentional damage. Therefore, the tenant will be liable for the insurance excess of $550.00 for each area of damage. Rubbish removal for repairs
I consider the tenant to be liable for the rubbish removal costs arising from the repair work, being satisfied this is a reasonable cost associated with the repairs. Therefore, the amount sought of $690.00 is awarded above. Filing fee
As the landlord has been successful with the application, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee. Name suppression
An application for suppression has been made by both parties. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as her claim has been successful.
In terms of the tenant’s request, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, and noting that the tenant is the unsuccessful party, the Tribunal declines the tenant’s request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4854582 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4854582 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions