What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4915054 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Cris Hull and Matt Hull $407.00 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4915054?

Hole In Bedroom Door And Painting: $407.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4915054?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4915054?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10890748-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4915054 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay Cris Hull and Matt Hull $407.00 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4915054?

Hole In Bedroom Door And Painting: $407.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4915054?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4915054?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10890748-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

9 Parsot Place, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4915054 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4915054 — net $407.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Hole in bedroom door and painting	$407.00	Hole in bedroom door and painting
Net award	$407.00
Bond	$2,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$407.00

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Cris Hull and Matt Hull $407.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Cris Hull and Matt Hull: $407.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,753.00

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s hearing.
The tenants lived in the property from 28 January 2023 to the 24 May 2024. During the tenancy the landlords lived in another part of New Zealand but undertook two inspections of the property. The landlords managed the tenancy themselves.
The tenancy ended as the landlords were putting the property on the market. The property has now been sold.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord conducted an inspection of the property on the 25 May 2024 with the tenants present. During that inspection two areas of concern were noted, the damage caused by a leak under the kitchen bench, and repair and paint work to a wall in one of the bedrooms.
After the inspection the landlord also noted a hole in the plaster membrane of the outside wall.
The tenants were seeking the full bond back but have today confirmed that they accept liability of the cost of repairing and painting the damage in the bedroom of $407.00.
The remaining claims to be determined are: a) The landlords claim for damage to the kitchen island bench – the landlord claims $5000.00 for this damage. b) The landlord’s claim for the damage to the hole in the exterior of the property (the landlord seeks reimbursement of the excess paid of $550). c) The bond.

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.
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 not liable for latent damage (or damage that is hidden) such as leaking pipes that are not noticed. The kitchen bench.
The landlord does not claim that the tenant caused the damage to the bench top, but rather that the tenant breached their responsibility to the landlord to notify the landlord of the leak, and the resultant damage came about because the tenant’s failure to notify the landlord.
S40 (1)(d) of the RTA requires tenants to: notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs; and
The tenants noticed water on the kitchen floor approximately a week before they notified the landlord of a possible problem. They tell me that they noticed the leak which appeared to come from the dishwasher so pulled out the dishwasher and could not see any issue, so cleaned the water up and kept an eye on the floor for any leaking. On the 28 March the tenants noticed water on the floor in the same spot. They notified the landlord by text that there was discoloured water on the floor and no obvious signs of leaking, they told the landlord they had looked at it and suspected a leaking pipe under the sink but had tightened the pipe and were keeping a watch (they told me that they took everything out of the cupboard under the sink and put down newspaper and cloths to see if they got wet). The landlord asked if they could try and figure out where the leak was coming from and maybe send a video. The tenants responded “okay”. The tenants say that they did keep a watch over the problem but that the cloth and the paper remained dry so they thought that the leak was fixed.
I am satisfied that the tenants did not breach their obligation to the landlord to notify the landlord of any damage because: a. The tenants sent a text notifying the landlord of the damage on the 28 March. There are many decisions that the Tribunal has made that make it clear that once a tenant notifies a landlord of the damage then it is the landlord’s responsibility to attend to the repair. b. The landlord did not take any steps to repair the damage or to investigate the cause of the leaks once notified, which was their responsibility. c. The tenants confirmed that they did not notice any leaking after the notification on the 28 March, so there was nothing further to tell the landlord. d. In the landlord’s insurance assessors claim it refers to the damage as being “hidden damage” and says that the damage looks to have occurred over 3-4 months. It is probable that the leaking occurred before the tenant’s even noticed the water leaking, and that the damage is as a result of the leaking before the tenants even knew that there was a problem. e. The tenants were not hiding the leak, or the resultant damage caused by the leak. The landlord’s sales agent came to the property on the 19 April only 3 weeks after the tenants notified the landlord of the leak, and the tenant drew his attention to and showed him the damage under the sink. The sales agent recalls discussing the damage with the owner/landlord on the phone. The hole in the exterior wall.
The stucco exterior of the property was freshly painted before the tenancy began.
After the final inspection the landlord noted a hole (approximately the size of a 10-cent piece) in the exterior wall at the front of the property. This hole was adjacent to two other indentations in the wall. The hole was clearly caused after the painting (and therefore during the tenancy) as the paint has been removed but the other two indentations still have paint on them, so it is hard to note whether they occurred before or after painting.
The tenants say that the hole in the wall was not noticed by the landlords or the tenant at the final inspection on the 25 May and only brought to their attention after the landlord conducted further inspection of the property.
The tenants also say that the property does not have any fence and that kids play on the road outside the house (it is in a cul-de-sac), and that any object, like a stone being thrown, or a car throwing up a stone could have caused the damage. The tenants say that they did not cause the hole and cannot recollect any event that may have caused the hole in the exterior of the property.
In order for the landlord to be successful the landlord has to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenants caused the damage and that they were doing something to cause the damage which they knew or should have known might cause the damage.
I am not satisfied that the tenants caused the damage. Whilst the location of the damage is set back a bit from the road, it is still possible that something or someone on the road caused the damage. It is also likely that the damage is from a one off accidental event such as a stone being thrown up from a passing car, or from a lawnmower. Even if the tenant’s lawnmowing had caused the damage, then I would not have classified a one off event causing such damage as careless.
The tenant’s have requested name suppression in this matter. As they have been successful in defending two out of three of the landlord’s claims then I grant the tenant’s name suppression.
As both parties have been partially successful, I do not grant either of them the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4915054 — net $407.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Hole in bedroom door and painting	$407.00	Hole in bedroom door and painting
Net award	$407.00
Bond	$2,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$407.00

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay Cris Hull and Matt Hull $407.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Cris Hull and Matt Hull: $407.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,753.00

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s hearing.
The tenants lived in the property from 28 January 2023 to the 24 May 2024. During the tenancy the landlords lived in another part of New Zealand but undertook two inspections of the property. The landlords managed the tenancy themselves.
The tenancy ended as the landlords were putting the property on the market. The property has now been sold.
At the end of the tenancy the landlord conducted an inspection of the property on the 25 May 2024 with the tenants present. During that inspection two areas of concern were noted, the damage caused by a leak under the kitchen bench, and repair and paint work to a wall in one of the bedrooms.
After the inspection the landlord also noted a hole in the plaster membrane of the outside wall.
The tenants were seeking the full bond back but have today confirmed that they accept liability of the cost of repairing and painting the damage in the bedroom of $407.00.
The remaining claims to be determined are: a) The landlords claim for damage to the kitchen island bench – the landlord claims $5000.00 for this damage. b) The landlord’s claim for the damage to the hole in the exterior of the property (the landlord seeks reimbursement of the excess paid of $550). c) The bond.

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.
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 not liable for latent damage (or damage that is hidden) such as leaking pipes that are not noticed. The kitchen bench.
The landlord does not claim that the tenant caused the damage to the bench top, but rather that the tenant breached their responsibility to the landlord to notify the landlord of the leak, and the resultant damage came about because the tenant’s failure to notify the landlord.
S40 (1)(d) of the RTA requires tenants to: notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs; and
The tenants noticed water on the kitchen floor approximately a week before they notified the landlord of a possible problem. They tell me that they noticed the leak which appeared to come from the dishwasher so pulled out the dishwasher and could not see any issue, so cleaned the water up and kept an eye on the floor for any leaking. On the 28 March the tenants noticed water on the floor in the same spot. They notified the landlord by text that there was discoloured water on the floor and no obvious signs of leaking, they told the landlord they had looked at it and suspected a leaking pipe under the sink but had tightened the pipe and were keeping a watch (they told me that they took everything out of the cupboard under the sink and put down newspaper and cloths to see if they got wet). The landlord asked if they could try and figure out where the leak was coming from and maybe send a video. The tenants responded “okay”. The tenants say that they did keep a watch over the problem but that the cloth and the paper remained dry so they thought that the leak was fixed.
I am satisfied that the tenants did not breach their obligation to the landlord to notify the landlord of any damage because: a. The tenants sent a text notifying the landlord of the damage on the 28 March. There are many decisions that the Tribunal has made that make it clear that once a tenant notifies a landlord of the damage then it is the landlord’s responsibility to attend to the repair. b. The landlord did not take any steps to repair the damage or to investigate the cause of the leaks once notified, which was their responsibility. c. The tenants confirmed that they did not notice any leaking after the notification on the 28 March, so there was nothing further to tell the landlord. d. In the landlord’s insurance assessors claim it refers to the damage as being “hidden damage” and says that the damage looks to have occurred over 3-4 months. It is probable that the leaking occurred before the tenant’s even noticed the water leaking, and that the damage is as a result of the leaking before the tenants even knew that there was a problem. e. The tenants were not hiding the leak, or the resultant damage caused by the leak. The landlord’s sales agent came to the property on the 19 April only 3 weeks after the tenants notified the landlord of the leak, and the tenant drew his attention to and showed him the damage under the sink. The sales agent recalls discussing the damage with the owner/landlord on the phone. The hole in the exterior wall.
The stucco exterior of the property was freshly painted before the tenancy began.
After the final inspection the landlord noted a hole (approximately the size of a 10-cent piece) in the exterior wall at the front of the property. This hole was adjacent to two other indentations in the wall. The hole was clearly caused after the painting (and therefore during the tenancy) as the paint has been removed but the other two indentations still have paint on them, so it is hard to note whether they occurred before or after painting.
The tenants say that the hole in the wall was not noticed by the landlords or the tenant at the final inspection on the 25 May and only brought to their attention after the landlord conducted further inspection of the property.
The tenants also say that the property does not have any fence and that kids play on the road outside the house (it is in a cul-de-sac), and that any object, like a stone being thrown, or a car throwing up a stone could have caused the damage. The tenants say that they did not cause the hole and cannot recollect any event that may have caused the hole in the exterior of the property.
In order for the landlord to be successful the landlord has to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenants caused the damage and that they were doing something to cause the damage which they knew or should have known might cause the damage.
I am not satisfied that the tenants caused the damage. Whilst the location of the damage is set back a bit from the road, it is still possible that something or someone on the road caused the damage. It is also likely that the damage is from a one off accidental event such as a stone being thrown up from a passing car, or from a lawnmower. Even if the tenant’s lawnmowing had caused the damage, then I would not have classified a one off event causing such damage as careless.
The tenant’s have requested name suppression in this matter. As they have been successful in defending two out of three of the landlord’s claims then I grant the tenant’s name suppression.
As both parties have been partially successful, I do not grant either of them the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4915054 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Parsot Place, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4915054 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Parsot Place, Pukekohe, Pukekohe 2120

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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