What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4886940?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6450873-005)

How much money was awarded in case 4886940?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $15.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4886940?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4886940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10655586-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4886940?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6450873-005)

How much money was awarded in case 4886940?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $15.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4886940?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4886940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10655586-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 40, 285 Vaughan Road, Owhata, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4886940 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4886940. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Insurance excess on hallway wall and laundry	$400.00	Repairs: Insurance excess on hallway wall and laundry
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Kitchen hob insurance excess	$400.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Kitchen hob insurance excess
Replace smoke alarms	$15.87	17. The landlord has claimed for replacement of a smoke alarm.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6450873-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Lesley Mary Gilmer Price: $836.31 Matthew O'Donnell: $1,563.69

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 29 July 2024. The hearing was adjourned to allow both parties to provide further evidence. That evidence has been received and I indicated to the parties at the hearing that once that evidence was received, I would prepare an order without the need for a further appearance by them.
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).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
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.
The landlord has insurance for tenant damage. The excess on that policy as recorded in the tenancy agreement is $400.00. No evidence was provided of the tenant being informed of any increase in that excess. That will be the excess applied by the Tribunal.
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: A wall was damaged in the hallway. The landlord did not know how it occurred, but was sure that it occurred during the tenancy. The tenant said that the damage had occurred whilst moving out of the premises. The tenant said that he had paid the previous property manager to complete the repairs to the wall and provided a receipt for that payment. The evidence subsequently received from the property manager was that this payment was not for the repair of the wall, but was for other unrelated work. The landlord claims that damage has been caused to the wall in the laundry by a tap leaking at the rear of the tenant’s washing machine. I have included one excess to both the hall and laundry as the invoice for repairs has been provided in such a manner that it is impossible to delineate between the work on the wall and the work in the laundry. The damage above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord has claimed for replacement of a smoke alarm. The landlord says that the smoke alarm was discovered in a damaged state by her. The tenant said that the smoke alarm was not working correctly. He tried to remove it from the ceiling and in the process the unit essentially came apart in his hands and fell to the floor. The damage was more than fair wear and tear and in my view the tenant explanation essentially is that he had been careless. There is certainly no suggestion at all that the damage may have been intentional. The amount ordered is proven.
The landlord seeks compensation for their administration costs. As I indicated at the hearing, those costs are essentially the costs of being a landlord. The Tribunal does not have power to award costs other than reimbursement of the filing fee.
As Lesley Mary Gilmer Price has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The parties asked me to make some enquiries with the Bond Centre. I have done so. As best as I was able to ascertain, the Bond Centre received instructions from the previous property manager to release $121.22 to the tenant. The Bond Centre had been unable to do so as they had no bank account number. The Bond Centre should consider this order to override any previous instructions that they may have received.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4886940. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Insurance excess on hallway wall and laundry	$400.00	Repairs: Insurance excess on hallway wall and laundry
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Kitchen hob insurance excess	$400.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Kitchen hob insurance excess
Replace smoke alarms	$15.87	17. The landlord has claimed for replacement of a smoke alarm.
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6450873-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Lesley Mary Gilmer Price: $836.31 Matthew O'Donnell: $1,563.69

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 29 July 2024. The hearing was adjourned to allow both parties to provide further evidence. That evidence has been received and I indicated to the parties at the hearing that once that evidence was received, I would prepare an order without the need for a further appearance by them.
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).
The Tribunal is not governed by the usual laws of evidence. The Tribunal may accept and consider any evidence. What is of importance, is the weight attached to that evidence by the Tribunal. As an example, the Tribunal is likely to attach more weight to evidence from a witness who is present at the hearing and who is available to be cross-examined, as distinct from evidence provided by way of a written statement from a witness who is not present at the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
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.
The landlord has insurance for tenant damage. The excess on that policy as recorded in the tenancy agreement is $400.00. No evidence was provided of the tenant being informed of any increase in that excess. That will be the excess applied by the Tribunal.
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: A wall was damaged in the hallway. The landlord did not know how it occurred, but was sure that it occurred during the tenancy. The tenant said that the damage had occurred whilst moving out of the premises. The tenant said that he had paid the previous property manager to complete the repairs to the wall and provided a receipt for that payment. The evidence subsequently received from the property manager was that this payment was not for the repair of the wall, but was for other unrelated work. The landlord claims that damage has been caused to the wall in the laundry by a tap leaking at the rear of the tenant’s washing machine. I have included one excess to both the hall and laundry as the invoice for repairs has been provided in such a manner that it is impossible to delineate between the work on the wall and the work in the laundry. The damage above is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord has claimed for replacement of a smoke alarm. The landlord says that the smoke alarm was discovered in a damaged state by her. The tenant said that the smoke alarm was not working correctly. He tried to remove it from the ceiling and in the process the unit essentially came apart in his hands and fell to the floor. The damage was more than fair wear and tear and in my view the tenant explanation essentially is that he had been careless. There is certainly no suggestion at all that the damage may have been intentional. The amount ordered is proven.
The landlord seeks compensation for their administration costs. As I indicated at the hearing, those costs are essentially the costs of being a landlord. The Tribunal does not have power to award costs other than reimbursement of the filing fee.
As Lesley Mary Gilmer Price has substantially succeeded with the claim I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The parties asked me to make some enquiries with the Bond Centre. I have done so. As best as I was able to ascertain, the Bond Centre received instructions from the previous property manager to release $121.22 to the tenant. The Bond Centre had been unable to do so as they had no bank account number. The Bond Centre should consider this order to override any previous instructions that they may have received.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4886940 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 40, 285 Vaughan Road, Owhata, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4886940 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 40, 285 Vaughan Road, Owhata, Rotorua 3010

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