What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4933333?

The tribunal order states: Martin Grice must pay Mireie Susan Neave $296.50 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4933333?

The reconciled net award was $46.50.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933333?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10964748-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4933333?

The tribunal order states: Martin Grice must pay Mireie Susan Neave $296.50 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4933333?

The reconciled net award was $46.50.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4933333?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Compensation.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4933333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10964748-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

86 Harrison Street East, Featherston, Featherston 5710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4933333 — Property damage

Order

Martin Grice must pay Mireie Susan Neave $296.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond and seeks reimbursement of the $273 that he has withheld from the bond.
The tenancy commenced on 31 October 2022 and ended on 14 July 2024. The bond to be paid was $1920.
No bond was paid for until 13 December 2022, when $960 was paid. A further three payments of $200 were made between 20 December 2022 and 20 March 2023. The parties agree that the total bond paid was $1,560.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Therefore, when the landlord received the payment of $960.00 on 13 December 2022, he should have lodged that amount with the bond centre no later than 22 January. Had he looked at the Tenancy Services website, he would have seen how to do that and allow for further payments to be made.
The landlord did not attempt to lodge any of the bond payments made. I find he has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this instance, the effect of the unlawful act has meant that at the end of the tenancy, when there was a dispute about damage to the property, the landlord could simply retain $273, rather than the full bond or amount in dispute being retained at the bond centre. If the tenant was successful in her defence of the landlord’s claims, the Tribunal could have ordered the bond centre to pay the $273 to her, which makes recovery for her much easier.
However, the tenant did not pay the full bond and was tardy in making the payments she did make.
I have taken that into account along with the public interest in reminding this landlord and others of the importance of lodging the bond. I have decided that $250 is an appropriate award of exemplary damages.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks $180 for damage to the kitchen bench and $93 for damage to a window brace and light switches.
Included in the evidence were some other matters of minor damage that the landlord says the tenant is responsible for, but no application has been made about those.
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.
The tenant does not dispute that the window brace was broken, that the small tab was missing from two light switch fittings, and that the kitchen bench showed damage, but she does not accept that she was careless. She says that the damage is all fair wear and tear.
The property is older style and has wooden, varnished kitchen benches. There is no drainage panel built into the bench. The landlord provided photographs of the bench before the tenancy started and afterwards. There is a large blackened area on the left hand side of the bench. He seeks $180 for sanding the bench down and revarnishing it.
The tenant acknowledges that this was caused by draining dishes before drying them. She said that she placed a teatowel down on the bench. She says that she could not prevent this. She did not notice the damage until towards the end of the tenancy. She thought it would wipe off.
The landlord says that he lived in the property for 10 years. He also washed and dried dishes in the manner described by the tenant. There was no damage to the bench.
I find that the damage to the bench is more than fair wear and tear. Some blistering or peeling might have been expected after some years, but almost all of the left-hand side of the bench is discoloured. I find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has been careless and is responsible for the repairs. The sum of $180 is reasonable compensation. The amount ordered is proved.
The tenant’s explanation for the broken window brace is that it just broke in her hand. I find this explanation difficult to believe. I find it is more likely than not that the damage to the window brace was caused by carelessness on the tenant’s part.
I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the damage to the light switches, which are replica old-fashioned ones. There is no damage to the switch area surrounding the whole where the tab sits. I accept the tenant’s explanation that they simply fell out.
The amount claimed for the light switches and window brace is $93.00. I order half that amount for the repair to the window brace. That amount is $46.50.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because both parties have had some success, I have made no order for reimbursement of the filing fees.
Neither party has been substantially successful and so I make no order for suppression of names. Alternative summary of calculations
The landlord should not have retained the $273 without the tenant’s consent. If the bond had been lodged, then the bond centre would have been ordered to release the bond of $1560 as follows: $226.50 to the landlord $1333.50 to the tenant.
The tenant has received $1287. Therefore, she is entitled to a further $46.50 plus $250 for exemplary damages, which comes to $296.50.

Order

Martin Grice must pay Mireie Susan Neave $296.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond and seeks reimbursement of the $273 that he has withheld from the bond.
The tenancy commenced on 31 October 2022 and ended on 14 July 2024. The bond to be paid was $1920.
No bond was paid for until 13 December 2022, when $960 was paid. A further three payments of $200 were made between 20 December 2022 and 20 March 2023. The parties agree that the total bond paid was $1,560.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Therefore, when the landlord received the payment of $960.00 on 13 December 2022, he should have lodged that amount with the bond centre no later than 22 January. Had he looked at the Tenancy Services website, he would have seen how to do that and allow for further payments to be made.
The landlord did not attempt to lodge any of the bond payments made. I find he has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this instance, the effect of the unlawful act has meant that at the end of the tenancy, when there was a dispute about damage to the property, the landlord could simply retain $273, rather than the full bond or amount in dispute being retained at the bond centre. If the tenant was successful in her defence of the landlord’s claims, the Tribunal could have ordered the bond centre to pay the $273 to her, which makes recovery for her much easier.
However, the tenant did not pay the full bond and was tardy in making the payments she did make.
I have taken that into account along with the public interest in reminding this landlord and others of the importance of lodging the bond. I have decided that $250 is an appropriate award of exemplary damages.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks $180 for damage to the kitchen bench and $93 for damage to a window brace and light switches.
Included in the evidence were some other matters of minor damage that the landlord says the tenant is responsible for, but no application has been made about those.
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.
The tenant does not dispute that the window brace was broken, that the small tab was missing from two light switch fittings, and that the kitchen bench showed damage, but she does not accept that she was careless. She says that the damage is all fair wear and tear.
The property is older style and has wooden, varnished kitchen benches. There is no drainage panel built into the bench. The landlord provided photographs of the bench before the tenancy started and afterwards. There is a large blackened area on the left hand side of the bench. He seeks $180 for sanding the bench down and revarnishing it.
The tenant acknowledges that this was caused by draining dishes before drying them. She said that she placed a teatowel down on the bench. She says that she could not prevent this. She did not notice the damage until towards the end of the tenancy. She thought it would wipe off.
The landlord says that he lived in the property for 10 years. He also washed and dried dishes in the manner described by the tenant. There was no damage to the bench.
I find that the damage to the bench is more than fair wear and tear. Some blistering or peeling might have been expected after some years, but almost all of the left-hand side of the bench is discoloured. I find on the balance of probabilities that the tenant has been careless and is responsible for the repairs. The sum of $180 is reasonable compensation. The amount ordered is proved.
The tenant’s explanation for the broken window brace is that it just broke in her hand. I find this explanation difficult to believe. I find it is more likely than not that the damage to the window brace was caused by carelessness on the tenant’s part.
I am not satisfied that the tenant is responsible for the damage to the light switches, which are replica old-fashioned ones. There is no damage to the switch area surrounding the whole where the tab sits. I accept the tenant’s explanation that they simply fell out.
The amount claimed for the light switches and window brace is $93.00. I order half that amount for the repair to the window brace. That amount is $46.50.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because both parties have had some success, I have made no order for reimbursement of the filing fees.
Neither party has been substantially successful and so I make no order for suppression of names. Alternative summary of calculations
The landlord should not have retained the $273 without the tenant’s consent. If the bond had been lodged, then the bond centre would have been ordered to release the bond of $1560 as follows: $226.50 to the landlord $1333.50 to the tenant.
The tenant has received $1287. Therefore, she is entitled to a further $46.50 plus $250 for exemplary damages, which comes to $296.50.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933333 — Property damage at 86 Harrison Street East, Featherston, Featherston 5710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4933333 — Property damage at 86 Harrison Street East, Featherston, Featherston 5710

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