What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4912313 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 4912313?

Property Damage: $6,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4912313?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4912313?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10602926-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4912313 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 4912313?

Property Damage: $6,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4912313?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4912313?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10602926-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

31A Willow Place, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4912313 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4912313 — net $5,200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$6,800.00	Repairs
Net award	$5,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,200.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Teraita-Keriana Takurua must pay [The landlord/s] $5,200.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Repairs$6,800.00 Total award$6,800.00 Bond$1,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,200.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has received notice of the landlord’s application and of this hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord gave evidence that extensive damage was caused to the kitchen floor by a leaking dishwashing machine. The water from the leak had spread across the kitchen flooring towards the laundry. The landlord gave evidence that the flooring in the kitchen has been so extensively damaged as to require replacement. He advised that at the present time the floor is covered in plywood as it is unsafe to walk on.
He supplied photographic evidence and a quotation/estimate from a builder for the cost of removing all the kitchen fixtures and appliances, removing damaged floorboards and skirtings, replacing floorboards and skirtings, replacing underfloor insulation, sanding and repainting. He explained that the kitchen had been newly renovated before the start of the tenancy in December 2022.
The landlord advised that the tenant had only advised him of the damage in April 2024 when he contacted her about another matter. The landlord’s claim is that the tenant is responsible for the damage because she breached her obligation under section 40(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs.
The landlord explained that the damage was clearly visible in buckling to the laminated flooring and that there was a strong smell of dampness and mould. The landlord believes that if the tenant had notified him promptly of the issue it could have been rectified without the extensive repairs now necessary. He gave evidence that the damage was not present or occurring at the start of the tenancy after the property had been renovated. He believes and his plumber has confirmed that the damage has been caused during the tenancy by the leak from the dishwasher.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant has been given 90 days’ notice of termination of the tenancy because of the extensive works required. He provided email evidence that he has accepted the builder’s quotation for the required work which was expected to start early next month.
The landlord has persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that: a. The damage was caused gradually throughout the tenancy and was of such a nature and extent that the tenant must have been aware of it and failed to notify the landlord. b. The tenant was in breach of her obligation under section 40(1)(d) RTA. c. The landlord has incurred loss equivalent to at least the landlord’s builder’s quotation. The loss may in fact be more once the work has been completed. d. The tenant’s failure to advise the landlord of the issue was intentional. The tenant had the contact details of the landlord in the tenancy agreement and had contacted him in the past.
The tenant is therefore responsible for the damage and the landlord’s costs of repair. The landlord is awarded the amount he is seeking being the amount of the quotation. The amount is fair and reasonable based on invoices the Tribunal sees for similar works in this area.
I have considered 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. By reinstating the floor, the landlord is not receiving anything better than he is entitled to and so there is no element of betterment. The landlord is being returned to the same position he would have been were it no for the inaction of the tenant in not notifying him of the issue which progressively caused the damage.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. It is appropriate that the landlord be granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4912313 — net $5,200.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$6,800.00	Repairs
Net award	$5,200.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,200.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Teraita-Keriana Takurua must pay [The landlord/s] $5,200.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Repairs$6,800.00 Total award$6,800.00 Bond$1,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,200.00

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has received notice of the landlord’s application and of this hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord gave evidence that extensive damage was caused to the kitchen floor by a leaking dishwashing machine. The water from the leak had spread across the kitchen flooring towards the laundry. The landlord gave evidence that the flooring in the kitchen has been so extensively damaged as to require replacement. He advised that at the present time the floor is covered in plywood as it is unsafe to walk on.
He supplied photographic evidence and a quotation/estimate from a builder for the cost of removing all the kitchen fixtures and appliances, removing damaged floorboards and skirtings, replacing floorboards and skirtings, replacing underfloor insulation, sanding and repainting. He explained that the kitchen had been newly renovated before the start of the tenancy in December 2022.
The landlord advised that the tenant had only advised him of the damage in April 2024 when he contacted her about another matter. The landlord’s claim is that the tenant is responsible for the damage because she breached her obligation under section 40(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs.
The landlord explained that the damage was clearly visible in buckling to the laminated flooring and that there was a strong smell of dampness and mould. The landlord believes that if the tenant had notified him promptly of the issue it could have been rectified without the extensive repairs now necessary. He gave evidence that the damage was not present or occurring at the start of the tenancy after the property had been renovated. He believes and his plumber has confirmed that the damage has been caused during the tenancy by the leak from the dishwasher.
The landlord gave evidence that the tenant has been given 90 days’ notice of termination of the tenancy because of the extensive works required. He provided email evidence that he has accepted the builder’s quotation for the required work which was expected to start early next month.
The landlord has persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that: a. The damage was caused gradually throughout the tenancy and was of such a nature and extent that the tenant must have been aware of it and failed to notify the landlord. b. The tenant was in breach of her obligation under section 40(1)(d) RTA. c. The landlord has incurred loss equivalent to at least the landlord’s builder’s quotation. The loss may in fact be more once the work has been completed. d. The tenant’s failure to advise the landlord of the issue was intentional. The tenant had the contact details of the landlord in the tenancy agreement and had contacted him in the past.
The tenant is therefore responsible for the damage and the landlord’s costs of repair. The landlord is awarded the amount he is seeking being the amount of the quotation. The amount is fair and reasonable based on invoices the Tribunal sees for similar works in this area.
I have considered 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. By reinstating the floor, the landlord is not receiving anything better than he is entitled to and so there is no element of betterment. The landlord is being returned to the same position he would have been were it no for the inaction of the tenant in not notifying him of the issue which progressively caused the damage.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. It is appropriate that the landlord be granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4912313 — Property damage at 31A Willow Place, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4912313 — Property damage at 31A Willow Place, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions