What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4885589 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4885589?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885589?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11267645-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4885589 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4885589?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4885589?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4885589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11267645-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4885589 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4885589 — net $920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet repairs	$300.00	Carpet repairs
Repairs	$600.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$920.44
Bond	$1,980.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$920.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $920.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $920.44 [The tenant/s]: $1,059.56

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 1 May 2024. The landlord provided some rent records in support of the claim for rent arrears of $224.00.
The tenants disputed the amount claimed and referred to both a missing payment that had been made and not recorded in the summary and how the initial advance rent payments had been dealt with by the landlord. Unfortunately, the rent summary provided by the landlord did not cover the initial period of the tenancy and no water rates invoices were provided by the landlord to support the claim. As indicated above, the burden of proving claims is on the landlord. I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to meet that evidentiary burden. The application for rent arrears and water rates is dismissed.

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 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. The landlord is insured. The excess on the policy of insurance is $400.00 on each and every claim.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The carpet was damaged. The landlord accepts that the carpet was at least 6 to 7 years old. The landlord provided photos of the carpet at the start of the tenancy. The photos show carpet that appears in fair condition for that age. Further photos were provided of the carpet at the end of the tenancy. Those photos show damage which in my view is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant says that the carpet was of inferior quality. The landlord provided an invoice for repairs of $402.50.
In setting compensation at $300.00, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord claims compensation for damage to the walls which required repairs and repainting. The initial claim was for $1,794.00. At the hearing the landlord reduced this to $800.00 as they accepted that the work carried out resulted in a degree of betterment to the landlord. The premises had not been redecorated for at least 4 years. The photos show damage which in my view is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Having reviewed the photos taken before and after the tenancy and taking into account that the tenancy lasted for nearly 4 years, I consider that a further reduction in compensation to $600.00 is appropriate. That also takes into account any betterment to the landlord.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. Both parties have been substantially successful and suppression of both the landlord and tenants’ names and details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4885589 — net $920.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet repairs	$300.00	Carpet repairs
Repairs	$600.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$920.44
Bond	$1,980.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$920.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $920.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $920.44 [The tenant/s]: $1,059.56

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 1 May 2024. The landlord provided some rent records in support of the claim for rent arrears of $224.00.
The tenants disputed the amount claimed and referred to both a missing payment that had been made and not recorded in the summary and how the initial advance rent payments had been dealt with by the landlord. Unfortunately, the rent summary provided by the landlord did not cover the initial period of the tenancy and no water rates invoices were provided by the landlord to support the claim. As indicated above, the burden of proving claims is on the landlord. I am not satisfied that the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to meet that evidentiary burden. The application for rent arrears and water rates is dismissed.

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 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. The landlord is insured. The excess on the policy of insurance is $400.00 on each and every claim.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The carpet was damaged. The landlord accepts that the carpet was at least 6 to 7 years old. The landlord provided photos of the carpet at the start of the tenancy. The photos show carpet that appears in fair condition for that age. Further photos were provided of the carpet at the end of the tenancy. Those photos show damage which in my view is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant says that the carpet was of inferior quality. The landlord provided an invoice for repairs of $402.50.
In setting compensation at $300.00, I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord claims compensation for damage to the walls which required repairs and repainting. The initial claim was for $1,794.00. At the hearing the landlord reduced this to $800.00 as they accepted that the work carried out resulted in a degree of betterment to the landlord. The premises had not been redecorated for at least 4 years. The photos show damage which in my view is beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Having reviewed the photos taken before and after the tenancy and taking into account that the tenancy lasted for nearly 4 years, I consider that a further reduction in compensation to $600.00 is appropriate. That also takes into account any betterment to the landlord.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. Both parties have been substantially successful and suppression of both the landlord and tenants’ names and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4885589 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4885589 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions