How much money was awarded in case 4882308?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882308?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10762710-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4882308?

Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4882308?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4882308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10762710-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

40 Te Korari Street, Marshland, Christchurch 8083 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4882308 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4882308 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4882308 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for damage to wall in bedroom 2	$200.00	Compensation for damage to wall in bedroom 2
Net award	$200.00
Bond	$402.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay Gold Property Management Limited trading as Harcourts as agent for Julian Berryman $200.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $402.50 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Gold Property Management Limited trading as Harcourts as agent for Julian Berryman: $200.00 [The tenant/s]: $202.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, one of the tenants and two landlord representatives.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Previous settlement

The parties previously attended mediation and settled the issue of rent arrears. The issue now before the Tribunal remained unresolved so the amount in dispute has remained with the Bond Centre.

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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.

In this case the landlord’s claim for the repair of damage amounts to $402.50. The insurance excess on the landlord’s (the owner’s) insurance policy is $500.00.

The landlord alleges that there was damage to a wall in bedroom 2, proved by the production of an in-going property inspection report, inspection reports throughout the tenancy, and an out-going inspection report. The tenancy started on 21 June 2022 and ended on 20 March 2024.

The tenant gave evidence that they were unaware of the damage to the wall and how it occurred. They queried the repair cost as they obtained a quote from a friend for $50.00 to repair the damage.

I have assessed the documentary evidence and have considered the oral evidence both parties gave at the hearing. I find that the damage to the wall probably occurred during the tenancy and was careless damage. It is damage for which the tenants are responsible.

That the tenants were unaware of the damage or how it happened does not mean that they are not liable for the repair of the damage. Is the landlord’s claim reasonable?

The landlord employed a master painter to repair the damage. The landlord’s representative said that was the management firm’s policy so that the owner gained the protection of a 5-year warranty.

The damage was minor, but beyond fair wear and tear. The premises were built about 20-24 years ago and this was the original paintwork. Some allowance must be made for depreciation.

I do not consider that a minor repair of this nature required a master painter to be employed. The landlord was entitled to make that choice, but that does not mean the tenant should be liable for the cost in full. The photos produced in evidence show that the repair could easily have been done by a handyperson; it was not damage to an extent that required a master tradesperson to repair it.

The tenants claim that a friend could have repaired the damage for $50.00 is not realistic either. Given that both plastering and painting were needed, objectively, the repair cost would have been higher.

I find that the landlord should receive compensation of $200.00 for the damage, which it elected to have professionally repaired when a handyperson repair would have been adequate.

I award the landlord that amount, to be paid from the remaining bond. Result

The bond will be split between the parties - $200.00 to the landlord and $202.50 to the tenants.

I make no order reimbursing the filing fees in this case. Each party has succeeded to an extent; an order for reimbursement to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression

The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought a name suppression order. I order suppression of the tenants’ names as their application and defence to the landlord’s application has been successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4882308 — net $200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for damage to wall in bedroom 2	$200.00	Compensation for damage to wall in bedroom 2
Net award	$200.00
Bond	$402.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$200.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Gold Property Management Limited trading as Harcourts as agent for Julian Berryman $200.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $402.50 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Gold Property Management Limited trading as Harcourts as agent for Julian Berryman: $200.00 [The tenant/s]: $202.50

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, one of the tenants and two landlord representatives.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Previous settlement
The parties previously attended mediation and settled the issue of rent arrears. The issue now before the Tribunal remained unresolved so the amount in dispute has remained with the Bond Centre.

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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
In this case the landlord’s claim for the repair of damage amounts to $402.50. The insurance excess on the landlord’s (the owner’s) insurance policy is $500.00.
The landlord alleges that there was damage to a wall in bedroom 2, proved by the production of an in-going property inspection report, inspection reports throughout the tenancy, and an out-going inspection report. The tenancy started on 21 June 2022 and ended on 20 March 2024.
The tenant gave evidence that they were unaware of the damage to the wall and how it occurred. They queried the repair cost as they obtained a quote from a friend for $50.00 to repair the damage.
I have assessed the documentary evidence and have considered the oral evidence both parties gave at the hearing. I find that the damage to the wall probably occurred during the tenancy and was careless damage. It is damage for which the tenants are responsible.
That the tenants were unaware of the damage or how it happened does not mean that they are not liable for the repair of the damage. Is the landlord’s claim reasonable?
The landlord employed a master painter to repair the damage. The landlord’s representative said that was the management firm’s policy so that the owner gained the protection of a 5-year warranty.
The damage was minor, but beyond fair wear and tear. The premises were built about 20-24 years ago and this was the original paintwork. Some allowance must be made for depreciation.
I do not consider that a minor repair of this nature required a master painter to be employed. The landlord was entitled to make that choice, but that does not mean the tenant should be liable for the cost in full. The photos produced in evidence show that the repair could easily have been done by a handyperson; it was not damage to an extent that required a master tradesperson to repair it.
The tenants claim that a friend could have repaired the damage for $50.00 is not realistic either. Given that both plastering and painting were needed, objectively, the repair cost would have been higher.
I find that the landlord should receive compensation of $200.00 for the damage, which it elected to have professionally repaired when a handyperson repair would have been adequate.
I award the landlord that amount, to be paid from the remaining bond. Result
The bond will be split between the parties - $200.00 to the landlord and $202.50 to the tenants.
I make no order reimbursing the filing fees in this case. Each party has succeeded to an extent; an order for reimbursement to one would be cancelled by an award to the other. Name suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression. The tenants sought a name suppression order. I order suppression of the tenants’ names as their application and defence to the landlord’s application has been successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882308 — Property damage at 40 Te Korari Street, Marshland, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4882308 — Property damage at 40 Te Korari Street, Marshland, Christchurch 8083

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions