What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4895343?

The tribunal order states: Nilay Girishbhai Dhameliya, Manav Rajnani, Jatin Jayantibhai Ramani and

How much money was awarded in case 4895343?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Stove Top: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4895343?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4895343?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10666938-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4895343?

The tribunal order states: Nilay Girishbhai Dhameliya, Manav Rajnani, Jatin Jayantibhai Ramani and

How much money was awarded in case 4895343?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Stove Top: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4895343?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4895343?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10666938-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 178 Hendersons Road, Hoon Hay, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4895343 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4895343 — net $1,070.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Sink - insurance excess	$550.00	Repairs: Sink - insurance excess
Repairs: Stove Top	$500.00	Repairs: Stove Top
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,070.44
Bond	$1,982.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,070.44

Nilay Girishbhai Dhameliya, Manav Rajnani, Jatin Jayantibhai Ramani and Rushita Nilay Dhameliya to pay Red Chili Property Management Limited T/A Ray White as agent for Rawinder Signla & Narpreet Kaur $1,070.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,982.35 (6496809-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Red Chili Property Management Limited T/A Ray White As Agent For Rawinder Signla & Narpreet Kaur: $1,070.44 Nilay Girishbhai Dhameliya, Manav Rajnani, Jatin Jayantibhai Ramani and Rushita Nilay $911.91 Dhameliya:

The landlord’s claim for a replacement bench top is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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

In its application, the landlord claimed $5,567.50 for damage in the kitchen. At the hearing, the landlord advised that the claims are now; 2 insurance excesses of $550 each for damage to a benchtop and a ceramic sink and $1,667.50 for a replacement cooktop. That is, the total claim had reduced to $2,767.50.

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 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.

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 landlord claimed that a bench top was cracked, a ceramic sink was cracked, and a stovetop was damaged during the tenancy. The kitchen was new at the start of the tenancy.

One crack appeared on the benchtop within 2 weeks of the tenancy starting. The crack was in a narrow portion of the benchtop, at the left corner at the rear of the cook top. The tenant reported the damage to the property manager. The owner took a number of months to respond. The crack was never repaired, and is noted as a maintenance issue in regular property inspection reports. The second crack was identified at the end of the tenancy and is at the other rear corner of the cooktop.

The landlord provided an email from the supplier noting that it is likely heat damage. I have difficulty with that explanation, as the first crack occurred to a new benchtop within two weeks, at what appears to be a weak or narrow point of the benchtop. Neither crack is in an area where a pot or hot object could be placed when removing it from the cooktop. The landlord did not establish that it is more likely than not that the cracks are tenant damage. The claim for a replacement benchtop is dismissed.

The tenant notified the landlord of a crack in the sink in November 2023. The landlord arranged for a temporary repair. The sink needs to be replaced and the landlord advised that the damage is covered by insurance. The tenant said that it did not know how the crack occurred. The landlord provided photographs which show that wear, scrapes and marks to the sink are more than would be expected after a year of use. I find that the crack as more likely than not, tenant damage that is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant is ordered to pay the landlord’s excess of $550.

The landlord also claimed $1,667.50 for a replacement stovetop. The landlord provided photographs from the end of the tenancy which show the stovetop stained with build-up, knobs are also broken. The landlord claimed that the stovetop needs to be replaced. The evidence establishes that the wear and tear to the stovetop is more than would reasonably be expected for one year’s use. However, the landlord did not establish that the stovetop needs to be replaced. Replacement knobs and proper cleaning is all that should be required. The landlord gave evidence that the photographs provided were after cleaning, but they were taken at 11am on the morning the landlord’s application says that the tenancy ended. There is no evidence of when the cleaning was done. I award $500 for replacement knobs and deep cleaning of the stove top.

As the landlord was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4895343 — net $1,070.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Sink - insurance excess	$550.00	Repairs: Sink - insurance excess
Repairs: Stove Top	$500.00	Repairs: Stove Top
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,070.44
Bond	$1,982.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,070.44

Order

Nilay Girishbhai Dhameliya, Manav Rajnani, Jatin Jayantibhai Ramani and Rushita Nilay Dhameliya to pay Red Chili Property Management Limited T/A Ray White as agent for Rawinder Signla & Narpreet Kaur $1,070.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,982.35 (6496809-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Red Chili Property Management Limited T/A Ray White As Agent For Rawinder Signla & Narpreet Kaur: $1,070.44 Nilay Girishbhai Dhameliya, Manav Rajnani, Jatin Jayantibhai Ramani and Rushita Nilay $911.91 Dhameliya:
The landlord’s claim for a replacement bench top is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In its application, the landlord claimed $5,567.50 for damage in the kitchen. At the hearing, the landlord advised that the claims are now; 2 insurance excesses of $550 each for damage to a benchtop and a ceramic sink and $1,667.50 for a replacement cooktop. That is, the total claim had reduced to $2,767.50.

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 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.
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 landlord claimed that a bench top was cracked, a ceramic sink was cracked, and a stovetop was damaged during the tenancy. The kitchen was new at the start of the tenancy.
One crack appeared on the benchtop within 2 weeks of the tenancy starting. The crack was in a narrow portion of the benchtop, at the left corner at the rear of the cook top. The tenant reported the damage to the property manager. The owner took a number of months to respond. The crack was never repaired, and is noted as a maintenance issue in regular property inspection reports. The second crack was identified at the end of the tenancy and is at the other rear corner of the cooktop.
The landlord provided an email from the supplier noting that it is likely heat damage. I have difficulty with that explanation, as the first crack occurred to a new benchtop within two weeks, at what appears to be a weak or narrow point of the benchtop. Neither crack is in an area where a pot or hot object could be placed when removing it from the cooktop. The landlord did not establish that it is more likely than not that the cracks are tenant damage. The claim for a replacement benchtop is dismissed.
The tenant notified the landlord of a crack in the sink in November 2023. The landlord arranged for a temporary repair. The sink needs to be replaced and the landlord advised that the damage is covered by insurance. The tenant said that it did not know how the crack occurred. The landlord provided photographs which show that wear, scrapes and marks to the sink are more than would be expected after a year of use. I find that the crack as more likely than not, tenant damage that is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant is ordered to pay the landlord’s excess of $550.
The landlord also claimed $1,667.50 for a replacement stovetop. The landlord provided photographs from the end of the tenancy which show the stovetop stained with build-up, knobs are also broken. The landlord claimed that the stovetop needs to be replaced. The evidence establishes that the wear and tear to the stovetop is more than would reasonably be expected for one year’s use. However, the landlord did not establish that the stovetop needs to be replaced. Replacement knobs and proper cleaning is all that should be required. The landlord gave evidence that the photographs provided were after cleaning, but they were taken at 11am on the morning the landlord’s application says that the tenancy ended. There is no evidence of when the cleaning was done. I award $500 for replacement knobs and deep cleaning of the stove top.
As the landlord was partially successful, I have awarded reimbursement of the Tribunal application fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4895343 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 178 Hendersons Road, Hoon Hay, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4895343 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 178 Hendersons Road, Hoon Hay, Christchurch

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions