What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4929773 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 4929773?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4929773?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4929773?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10897323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4929773 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 4929773?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4929773?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4929773?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10897323-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4929773 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4929773 — net $750.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$750.00	Repairs
Net award	$750.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$750.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $750.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $750.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,650.00

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 1 October 2024.
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. In this matter the tenant conduct in having a dog on the premises, has resulted in the landlord not being insured.
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.
Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541 involved a claim for damage to carpet caused by the tenants’ dogs urinating inside the premises. Walker J notes that there is a difference between damage intentionally done and damage intentionally caused. His Honour considered that the focal point for the former is the damage, not the action causing the damage, and the damage must be the desired consequence. Damage intentionally caused, refers to damage which the tenant was aware was virtually certain to happen, even though it was not the intended outcome. Walker J considered that one or two stains on the carpet caused by the dogs could be considered to be accidental rather than intentional. However, the extent of the damage, both in terms of how many rooms were affected and the number and size of the stains, inferred that the dogs have been urinating inside on multiple occasions over a long period. Walker J held that it is reasonable to conclude that after a few episodes of the dogs urinating inside, that further damage was certain if the dogs remained inside. Walker J also held that the landlord permitting the dogs to be on the premises did not mean that he assumed all the risk of damage. What the landlord did accept was that there would be greater wear and tear on the property because of the dogs. It did not mean that all damage, whatever the extent, caused by the dogs urinating on the carpet is fair wear and tear or unintentional.
The landlord says that a wooden stained floor was damaged during the tenancy. The tenancy agreement allowed for a dog to be present at the premises. There was not requirement that the tenant keep the dog outside.
Photos of the wooden floor prior to the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy were provided. The “after” clearly show some damage which the tenant accepted had been caused by the dogs claws. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider that the tenant must have become aware at some time during this 17 month tenancy that the floor was being damaged. The tenant has allowed the dog to remain inside without placing some form of protection over the floor. The landlord has allowed the dog to be present as a term of the tenancy agreement and I consider that a higher level of fair wear and tear must have been anticipated by the landlord. So in arriving at a figure I need to consider; • What the higher level of fair wear and tear that the landlord must be taken to have accepted by allowing a dog to be present? • I also have to take into account 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the floor at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
Taking into consideration that the floor was not in a recently sanded and stained condition at the commencement of the tenancy and the inevitability of the floor being scratched by having a dog present resulting in a higher level of fair wear and tear, I consider that an order for compensation of $750.00 is appropriate. The initial invoice being for $3,560.00.
Neither party can be said to be wholly or substantially successful, I make no order regarding the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. Neither party having been wholly or substantially successful would commonly result in suppression applications being declined. The matter is of limited public interest and accordingly suppression of the names and details is granted to both parties.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4929773 — net $750.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$750.00	Repairs
Net award	$750.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$750.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $750.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $750.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,650.00

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing on 1 October 2024.
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. In this matter the tenant conduct in having a dog on the premises, has resulted in the landlord not being insured.
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.
Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541 involved a claim for damage to carpet caused by the tenants’ dogs urinating inside the premises. Walker J notes that there is a difference between damage intentionally done and damage intentionally caused. His Honour considered that the focal point for the former is the damage, not the action causing the damage, and the damage must be the desired consequence. Damage intentionally caused, refers to damage which the tenant was aware was virtually certain to happen, even though it was not the intended outcome. Walker J considered that one or two stains on the carpet caused by the dogs could be considered to be accidental rather than intentional. However, the extent of the damage, both in terms of how many rooms were affected and the number and size of the stains, inferred that the dogs have been urinating inside on multiple occasions over a long period. Walker J held that it is reasonable to conclude that after a few episodes of the dogs urinating inside, that further damage was certain if the dogs remained inside. Walker J also held that the landlord permitting the dogs to be on the premises did not mean that he assumed all the risk of damage. What the landlord did accept was that there would be greater wear and tear on the property because of the dogs. It did not mean that all damage, whatever the extent, caused by the dogs urinating on the carpet is fair wear and tear or unintentional.
The landlord says that a wooden stained floor was damaged during the tenancy. The tenancy agreement allowed for a dog to be present at the premises. There was not requirement that the tenant keep the dog outside.
Photos of the wooden floor prior to the tenancy and at the end of the tenancy were provided. The “after” clearly show some damage which the tenant accepted had been caused by the dogs claws. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
I consider that the tenant must have become aware at some time during this 17 month tenancy that the floor was being damaged. The tenant has allowed the dog to remain inside without placing some form of protection over the floor. The landlord has allowed the dog to be present as a term of the tenancy agreement and I consider that a higher level of fair wear and tear must have been anticipated by the landlord. So in arriving at a figure I need to consider; • What the higher level of fair wear and tear that the landlord must be taken to have accepted by allowing a dog to be present? • I also have to take into account 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the floor at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
Taking into consideration that the floor was not in a recently sanded and stained condition at the commencement of the tenancy and the inevitability of the floor being scratched by having a dog present resulting in a higher level of fair wear and tear, I consider that an order for compensation of $750.00 is appropriate. The initial invoice being for $3,560.00.
Neither party can be said to be wholly or substantially successful, I make no order regarding the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. Neither party having been wholly or substantially successful would commonly result in suppression applications being declined. The matter is of limited public interest and accordingly suppression of the names and details is granted to both parties.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4929773 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4929773 — Property damage

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