What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4931998 about?

The tribunal order states: Joshua McLeod must pay [The landlord/s] $1,212.85 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4931998?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Plumber Call Out: $412.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4931998?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4931998?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11004857-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4931998 about?

The tribunal order states: Joshua McLeod must pay [The landlord/s] $1,212.85 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4931998?

Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord; Plumber Call Out: $412.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4931998?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4931998?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11004857-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4931998 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4931998 — net $1,212.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$800.00	Insurance excess
Repairs: Plumber call out	$412.85	Repairs: Plumber call out
Net award	$1,212.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,212.85

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 29 October 2024

The matter had been part heard on 30 August 2024.

The hearing today was to consider the landlord’s application for compensation.

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. The landlord was insured for damage. Where a property is insured against damage. The tenant’s liability is limited to the applicable excess or the equivalent rent for 4 weeks.

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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy. The premises has a sewerage system. The system has two motors. In the normal course of events, the two motors share the work load. When one motor fails, an alarm sounds to alert the user of the problem.

At the end of the tenancy, the landlord carried out an inspection. The landlord discovered that raw sewerage had backed up into the shower. The landlord called a plumber. The plumber said that the first motor had failed on the system but was not able to say why it had failed. The alarm would have sounded. The alarm had been disconnected leaving the single motor to carry the load. The single motor had burned out and the sewerage had backed up. The sewerage system was full and overloaded indicating that the system had failed some time ago.

The tenant evidence was that the system had failed some time ago. The alarm did sound and he turned it off. He thought that there had been a power failure. He said that the system then seemed to operate correctly until just before the end of the tenancy when the sewerage began to back up.

In this matter I prefer the evidence of the landlord . The system was overflowing when the landlord discovered the issue. Clearly the system had not been operating correctly for some time.

The system needed to be replaced. The insurance company assigned an excess of $800.00 to each motor.

The damage to the second motor is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is not liable for the damage to the first motor as there is no evidence to suggest that the damage was in any way caused by the tenant. It could have been as a result of fair wear and tear. The tenant is ordered to pay the plumber call out invoice of $412.85 and the insurance excess of $800.00 on the second motor.

Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful; and the tenant application for suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4931998 — net $1,212.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess	$800.00	Insurance excess
Repairs: Plumber call out	$412.85	Repairs: Plumber call out
Net award	$1,212.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,212.85

Order

Joshua McLeod must pay [The landlord/s] $1,212.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 29 October 2024
The matter had been part heard on 30 August 2024.
The hearing today was to consider the landlord’s application for compensation.

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. The landlord was insured for damage. Where a property is insured against damage. The tenant’s liability is limited to the applicable excess or the equivalent rent for 4 weeks.
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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy. The premises has a sewerage system. The system has two motors. In the normal course of events, the two motors share the work load. When one motor fails, an alarm sounds to alert the user of the problem.
At the end of the tenancy, the landlord carried out an inspection. The landlord discovered that raw sewerage had backed up into the shower. The landlord called a plumber. The plumber said that the first motor had failed on the system but was not able to say why it had failed. The alarm would have sounded. The alarm had been disconnected leaving the single motor to carry the load. The single motor had burned out and the sewerage had backed up. The sewerage system was full and overloaded indicating that the system had failed some time ago.
The tenant evidence was that the system had failed some time ago. The alarm did sound and he turned it off. He thought that there had been a power failure. He said that the system then seemed to operate correctly until just before the end of the tenancy when the sewerage began to back up.
In this matter I prefer the evidence of the landlord . The system was overflowing when the landlord discovered the issue. Clearly the system had not been operating correctly for some time.
The system needed to be replaced. The insurance company assigned an excess of $800.00 to each motor.
The damage to the second motor is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The tenant is not liable for the damage to the first motor as there is no evidence to suggest that the damage was in any way caused by the tenant. It could have been as a result of fair wear and tear. The tenant is ordered to pay the plumber call out invoice of $412.85 and the insurance excess of $800.00 on the second motor.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful; and the tenant application for suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4931998 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4931998 — 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