What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4879440 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4879440?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4879440?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4879440?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10695095-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4879440 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4879440?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4879440?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4879440?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10695095-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4879440 — Leaks

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 August 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant rented premises from the landlord on 27 March 2021 and lived there with her two children until the tenancy ended on 18 February 2024.
The bond of $2600.00 was refunded in March 2024 as a split refund with $680.17 paid to the landlord which the bond refund form records was for arrears, repairs and cleaning and the balance being refunded to the tenant.
On 6 May 2024 the landlord applied for compensation for damage and today seeks reimbursement of $750.00 being the owner’s insurance excess for bathroom vanity replacement.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the tenant shall not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage 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.
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: The bathroom vanity basin was cracked.
The parties agree that the basin cracked during the tenancy.
The issue in dispute is whether the tenant is liable for the damage.
The landlord presented the following in evidence and submissions in support of the claim: (a)A copy of the ingoing inspection report showing no damage to the basin. (b)A copy of an inspection report dated 4 October 2022 showing a fine crack in the basin visible from the tap extending to beside the plug. (c)A copy of the final inspection report dated 19 February 2024 showing a slightly widened crack in the basin from the tap extending just past the plug. (d)A copy of a quote from [Property Services Ltd] dated 25 March 2024 which assessed the damage and the cost of repair and under a heading “General comment/site Observations” stated “A crack has appeared to acrylic basin to wall hung vanity. Damage likely from impact”. The observation further noted that the vanity is silicone to painted walls, there is a tile splashback above and there is pre-existing water damage to the painted wall to the right hand side. (e)Proof of payment made by the owner for the repair on 4 April 2024. (f) Confirmation of the landlord’s insurance. The property manager stated that the insurer has approved a claim for damage repair. (g)A copy of an invoice to the tenant dated 26 March 2024 seeking reimbursement of the insurance excess of $750.00.
The property manager stated that the damage was first noticed in October 2022 and the owner contacted, however, they advised not to proceed with repair at that time as there was no evidence that the crack had gone right through the basin and there were no leak issues. The property manger described it as being a “hairline crack” at that time.
The property manager stated that the premises were built in the 1980s but stated that the vanity was newer than that although he did not have information regarding when it was installed.
In response the tenant submitted that she was not responsible for careless damage of the basin. The tenant stated that she understood that all matters had been resolved when the bond was refunded. She stated the issue of the basin was never raised with her during or at the end of the tenancy and she just thought it was always there.
The tenant stated that she had no recollection of anything occurring that may have caused the damage and suggested the crack could be stress related as it began near the faucet and the basin is wall hanging.
The tenant claimed that the house was old and cracks had appeared in other rooms of the house and the landlord arranged a painter to do repairs.
There is a cupboard above the basin that over hangs the basin. The tenant stated that she was not aware of anything falling from this and submitted that as the cupboard overhangs the basin it would be unlikely if anything fell that it would land by the faucet where the crack appears to have commenced from.
The tenant has raised the issue with her insurer who have not agreed to cover the issue as they are not satisfied the damage was carelessly caused.
The property manager responded that he was not aware of other cracks but agreed that paintwork had been done at the premises. The property manager stated there is no evidence to suggest that even if other cracks were present at the premises these had anything to do with the crack in the basin in the bathroom.
The property manager suggested the tenant’s children may have damaged the basin.
The tenant stated that she raised the issue of the cracked basin with her children when she was made aware of it following the end of the tenancy and they stated to her that they had not damaged it.
Having carefully considered the evidence I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for damage to the basin for the following reasons: (a)The owner chose not to have a contractor assess the damage when it first appeared. The evidence shows that the crack worsened during the 17-month period after it was first noticed. (b)The first assessment of the damage to the basin was done by a contractor in March 2024, more than one month after the tenancy ended and 17 months since the damage was first noticed. The contactor’s observation that the damage is likely from impact is in relation to what they inspected more than one month after the final inspection report was done. (c)The issue was not raised with the tenant until after the tenancy ended and after agreement had been reached about end of tenancy matters and the bond refunded. The tenant was not given an opportunity to respond to a suggestion that she was liable for the damage when it was first discovered. (d)Neither party know how or why the crack appeared and it was not investigated by a contractor when it was discovered. (e)If the basin was being used in the normal way and a crack appeared then that is fair wear and tear. There is insufficient evidence before me to suggest otherwise.
I find on the balance of probabilities that in this case the landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
Therefore, the landlord claim is dismissed.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord applied for suppression but has not been successful with their application. However, having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression of all party identifying details.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 7 August 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant rented premises from the landlord on 27 March 2021 and lived there with her two children until the tenancy ended on 18 February 2024.
The bond of $2600.00 was refunded in March 2024 as a split refund with $680.17 paid to the landlord which the bond refund form records was for arrears, repairs and cleaning and the balance being refunded to the tenant.
On 6 May 2024 the landlord applied for compensation for damage and today seeks reimbursement of $750.00 being the owner’s insurance excess for bathroom vanity replacement.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Section 40(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states that the tenant shall not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit any other person to damage 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.
The landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: The bathroom vanity basin was cracked.
The parties agree that the basin cracked during the tenancy.
The issue in dispute is whether the tenant is liable for the damage.
The landlord presented the following in evidence and submissions in support of the claim: (a)A copy of the ingoing inspection report showing no damage to the basin. (b)A copy of an inspection report dated 4 October 2022 showing a fine crack in the basin visible from the tap extending to beside the plug. (c)A copy of the final inspection report dated 19 February 2024 showing a slightly widened crack in the basin from the tap extending just past the plug. (d)A copy of a quote from [Property Services Ltd] dated 25 March 2024 which assessed the damage and the cost of repair and under a heading “General comment/site Observations” stated “A crack has appeared to acrylic basin to wall hung vanity. Damage likely from impact”. The observation further noted that the vanity is silicone to painted walls, there is a tile splashback above and there is pre-existing water damage to the painted wall to the right hand side. (e)Proof of payment made by the owner for the repair on 4 April 2024. (f) Confirmation of the landlord’s insurance. The property manager stated that the insurer has approved a claim for damage repair. (g)A copy of an invoice to the tenant dated 26 March 2024 seeking reimbursement of the insurance excess of $750.00.
The property manager stated that the damage was first noticed in October 2022 and the owner contacted, however, they advised not to proceed with repair at that time as there was no evidence that the crack had gone right through the basin and there were no leak issues. The property manger described it as being a “hairline crack” at that time.
The property manager stated that the premises were built in the 1980s but stated that the vanity was newer than that although he did not have information regarding when it was installed.
In response the tenant submitted that she was not responsible for careless damage of the basin. The tenant stated that she understood that all matters had been resolved when the bond was refunded. She stated the issue of the basin was never raised with her during or at the end of the tenancy and she just thought it was always there.
The tenant stated that she had no recollection of anything occurring that may have caused the damage and suggested the crack could be stress related as it began near the faucet and the basin is wall hanging.
The tenant claimed that the house was old and cracks had appeared in other rooms of the house and the landlord arranged a painter to do repairs.
There is a cupboard above the basin that over hangs the basin. The tenant stated that she was not aware of anything falling from this and submitted that as the cupboard overhangs the basin it would be unlikely if anything fell that it would land by the faucet where the crack appears to have commenced from.
The tenant has raised the issue with her insurer who have not agreed to cover the issue as they are not satisfied the damage was carelessly caused.
The property manager responded that he was not aware of other cracks but agreed that paintwork had been done at the premises. The property manager stated there is no evidence to suggest that even if other cracks were present at the premises these had anything to do with the crack in the basin in the bathroom.
The property manager suggested the tenant’s children may have damaged the basin.
The tenant stated that she raised the issue of the cracked basin with her children when she was made aware of it following the end of the tenancy and they stated to her that they had not damaged it.
Having carefully considered the evidence I find that the landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for damage to the basin for the following reasons: (a)The owner chose not to have a contractor assess the damage when it first appeared. The evidence shows that the crack worsened during the 17-month period after it was first noticed. (b)The first assessment of the damage to the basin was done by a contractor in March 2024, more than one month after the tenancy ended and 17 months since the damage was first noticed. The contactor’s observation that the damage is likely from impact is in relation to what they inspected more than one month after the final inspection report was done. (c)The issue was not raised with the tenant until after the tenancy ended and after agreement had been reached about end of tenancy matters and the bond refunded. The tenant was not given an opportunity to respond to a suggestion that she was liable for the damage when it was first discovered. (d)Neither party know how or why the crack appeared and it was not investigated by a contractor when it was discovered. (e)If the basin was being used in the normal way and a crack appeared then that is fair wear and tear. There is insufficient evidence before me to suggest otherwise.
I find on the balance of probabilities that in this case the landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage is beyond fair wear and tear.
Therefore, the landlord claim is dismissed.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord applied for suppression but has not been successful with their application. However, having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal grants suppression of all party identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4879440 — Leaks

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4879440 — Leaks

At a glance

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

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