What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4890930 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $286.35 ([Bond number suppressed]) to

How much money was awarded in case 4890930?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4890930?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4890930?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10842020-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4890930 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $286.35 ([Bond number suppressed]) to

How much money was awarded in case 4890930?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4890930?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4890930?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10842020-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 214 Bleakhouse Road, Mellons Bay, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4890930 — Leaks

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $286.35 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
The following facts are agreed between the parties.
The last day of the tenancy was 15 May 2024. The tenant was moving his belongings out of the property on this day. He hired a moving company to assist him. At some point during the moving process, the tenant noticed that the ranch slider door appeared broken. He enquired about the damage with the moving company, who admitted they broke the sliding-track of the ranch-slider door when moving the tenant’s piano. The tenant advised the landlord of the damage immediately via email. He then visited his new property to obtain some tools for the moving company to carry out repairs. When the tenant returned to the property, the landlord was present. The moving company had already carried out repairs, the quality of which the landlord was not happy about. The landlord requested that the repair be undone, which it was. The landlord subsequently had the sliding track repaired at a cost of $286.35.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond. The bond was $2,880.00. All but $286.35 has been returned to the tenant. The tenant claims he is not responsible for the damage caused to the sliding-track of the ranch-slider door by the moving company.
The landlord filed a cross-application, seeking compensation of $286.35 for the cost incurred to repair the sliding-track of the ranch-slider door. The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for the damage.

Is the tenant responsible for damage caused by the moving company?

Section 41(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states: The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permissions if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
Clause 6 of the Tenancy Agreement lists the tenant’s responsibilities, one of which is to not damage or permit damage to the premises.
The tenant accepted that the moving company was in the premises with the tenant’s permission. The moving company damaged the sliding track of the ranch slider door. If the tenant had damaged the sliding track of the ranch slider door, it would have constituted a breach of clause 6 of the Tenancy Agreement. Therefore, I find that that the tenant is responsible for the actions of the moving company that caused damage to the sliding-track of the ranch-slider door.

Is the damage more than fair wear and tear?

With any claim, it is for the landlord to establish that damage is beyond fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability. See section 49A(2) RTA. Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. On 15 May 2024, the moving company transported the tenant’s belongings out of the property via the ranch-slider door. This included items of furniture and a piano. There were three people from the moving company. The sliding-track would have undergone a lot of use between these three people. It would also have sustained more weight than is usual, as furniture items and a piano are heavy. For these reasons, I find that the damage was not a result of deterioration to the premises due to the reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces.

Is the damage intentional or careless?

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.
I find that the damage was not intentional, but the result of a careless act by the moving company when transporting the tenant’s piano.
Where 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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord’s insurance excess is $2,500.00. Four weeks’ rent is $3,000.00. The cost of repairing the sliding-track of the ranch- slider door was $286.35, which is well below the landlord’s insurance excess.
The repair carried out to the sliding-track of the ranch-slider door by the moving company was done without the landlord’s permission. The moving company is not a trades company. It does not specialise in building repairs. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the repair was not adequate. The landlord is entitled to have the sliding-track fixed by an appropriate professional. Suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression.
The landlord has wholly succeeded in the proceedings and therefore, I must order suppression of their name and identifying particulars. See section 95A(1) RTA.
I have considered the tenant’s request for suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. I have taken into account the interests of the parties and public. The tenant did not personally damage the sliding-track of the ranch-slider door. It is unfortunate that the moving company has not accepted responsibility and paid the repair costs themselves. The tenant was a very good tenant who was refunded the majority of the bond at the end of the tenancy. I do not consider there is any public interest in publishing the tenant’s name and have granted their application for suppression. Conclusion
The tenant’s application for a refund of the bond is dismissed. The landlord’s cross-application for compensation of $286.35 to repair the sliding-track of the ranch-slider door is granted.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $286.35 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Background
The following facts are agreed between the parties.
The last day of the tenancy was 15 May 2024. The tenant was moving his belongings out of the property on this day. He hired a moving company to assist him. At some point during the moving process, the tenant noticed that the ranch slider door appeared broken. He enquired about the damage with the moving company, who admitted they broke the sliding-track of the ranch-slider door when moving the tenant’s piano. The tenant advised the landlord of the damage immediately via email. He then visited his new property to obtain some tools for the moving company to carry out repairs. When the tenant returned to the property, the landlord was present. The moving company had already carried out repairs, the quality of which the landlord was not happy about. The landlord requested that the repair be undone, which it was. The landlord subsequently had the sliding track repaired at a cost of $286.35.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond. The bond was $2,880.00. All but $286.35 has been returned to the tenant. The tenant claims he is not responsible for the damage caused to the sliding-track of the ranch-slider door by the moving company.
The landlord filed a cross-application, seeking compensation of $286.35 for the cost incurred to repair the sliding-track of the ranch-slider door. The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for the damage.

Is the tenant responsible for damage caused by the moving company?

Section 41(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states: The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permissions if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant.
Clause 6 of the Tenancy Agreement lists the tenant’s responsibilities, one of which is to not damage or permit damage to the premises.
The tenant accepted that the moving company was in the premises with the tenant’s permission. The moving company damaged the sliding track of the ranch slider door. If the tenant had damaged the sliding track of the ranch slider door, it would have constituted a breach of clause 6 of the Tenancy Agreement. Therefore, I find that that the tenant is responsible for the actions of the moving company that caused damage to the sliding-track of the ranch-slider door.

Is the damage more than fair wear and tear?

With any claim, it is for the landlord to establish that damage is beyond fair wear and tear, which is an exception to tenant liability. See section 49A(2) RTA. Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403.
I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. On 15 May 2024, the moving company transported the tenant’s belongings out of the property via the ranch-slider door. This included items of furniture and a piano. There were three people from the moving company. The sliding-track would have undergone a lot of use between these three people. It would also have sustained more weight than is usual, as furniture items and a piano are heavy. For these reasons, I find that the damage was not a result of deterioration to the premises due to the reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces.

Is the damage intentional or careless?

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.
I find that the damage was not intentional, but the result of a careless act by the moving company when transporting the tenant’s piano.
Where 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. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord’s insurance excess is $2,500.00. Four weeks’ rent is $3,000.00. The cost of repairing the sliding-track of the ranch- slider door was $286.35, which is well below the landlord’s insurance excess.
The repair carried out to the sliding-track of the ranch-slider door by the moving company was done without the landlord’s permission. The moving company is not a trades company. It does not specialise in building repairs. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the repair was not adequate. The landlord is entitled to have the sliding-track fixed by an appropriate professional. Suppression
Both parties applied for name suppression.
The landlord has wholly succeeded in the proceedings and therefore, I must order suppression of their name and identifying particulars. See section 95A(1) RTA.
I have considered the tenant’s request for suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. I have taken into account the interests of the parties and public. The tenant did not personally damage the sliding-track of the ranch-slider door. It is unfortunate that the moving company has not accepted responsibility and paid the repair costs themselves. The tenant was a very good tenant who was refunded the majority of the bond at the end of the tenancy. I do not consider there is any public interest in publishing the tenant’s name and have granted their application for suppression. Conclusion
The tenant’s application for a refund of the bond is dismissed. The landlord’s cross-application for compensation of $286.35 to repair the sliding-track of the ranch-slider door is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4890930 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 1, 214 Bleakhouse Road, Mellons Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4890930 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 1, 214 Bleakhouse Road, Mellons Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for damage caused by the moving company?

Is the damage more than fair wear and tear?

Is the damage intentional or careless?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for damage caused by the moving company?

Is the damage more than fair wear and tear?

Is the damage intentional or careless?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions