What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939474 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim for the bench top is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4939474?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939474?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939474?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11038050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939474 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim for the bench top is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4939474?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939474?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939474?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11038050-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 46 Randwick Road, Northland, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 4939474 — Property damage

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

This tenancy has ended and the parties cannot agree about the bond refund. The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of replacing a kitchen bench.

The landlord must prove that the damage to the bench occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. 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. The insurance excess in this case is $1000. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

The landlord submitted that the tenants allowed an excessive amount of water to sit on the bench and this caused damage to the unsealed MDF under the bench top. The bench cracked along the front edge and had to be replaced. The landlord said that during the tenancy he observed dishes left on the bench to drain and pools of water on the bench top. He raised his concerns with the tenants straight away and followed up in an email. The landlord’s submission is that the tenants were careless and this caused damage to the benchtop on the right side of the sink.

The tenants said they used the bench in the usual way. They said they took the landlord seriously and used tea towels and a tray to try and keep the bench dry. Their witness confirmed she saw them use lots of tea towels on the bench and a tray when they did the dishes. The tenants also said the damaged bench is where they put their dirty dishes before washing, and that they left the clean dishes to dry on the left side of the sink. The landlord replied that he saw wet pots and lots of water on both sides of the bench.

I have carefully considered the landlord’s photos. The swollen MDF is easy to identify in the photos. The damage was located on the right side of the sink next to the fridge panel. The cupboard underneath that piece of bench is also showing the first signs of water damage. There is also a photo showing the kitchen without the bench top. What is interesting is that there is no apparent water damage on the left side of the sink, despite the landlord seeing “pools of water” on that side of the bench as well, and the tenants’ evidence they left their dishes on the left side to dry.

This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I am not more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence and submission that there was careless damage. It seems equally possible to me that the damage to the right side only was because of some fault with the bench top. Accordingly this claim is dismissed. Other orders

The bond is refunded in full to the tenants.

Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party.

Order

The claim for the bench top is dismissed.
Tim Moynihan and Emily Barrett must pay [The tenant/s] $27.00 immediately, being the filing fee.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,275.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
This tenancy has ended and the parties cannot agree about the bond refund. The landlord has applied for compensation for the cost of replacing a kitchen bench.
The landlord must prove that the damage to the bench occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenants must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. The landlord is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. 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. The insurance excess in this case is $1000. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The landlord submitted that the tenants allowed an excessive amount of water to sit on the bench and this caused damage to the unsealed MDF under the bench top. The bench cracked along the front edge and had to be replaced. The landlord said that during the tenancy he observed dishes left on the bench to drain and pools of water on the bench top. He raised his concerns with the tenants straight away and followed up in an email. The landlord’s submission is that the tenants were careless and this caused damage to the benchtop on the right side of the sink.
The tenants said they used the bench in the usual way. They said they took the landlord seriously and used tea towels and a tray to try and keep the bench dry. Their witness confirmed she saw them use lots of tea towels on the bench and a tray when they did the dishes. The tenants also said the damaged bench is where they put their dirty dishes before washing, and that they left the clean dishes to dry on the left side of the sink. The landlord replied that he saw wet pots and lots of water on both sides of the bench.
I have carefully considered the landlord’s photos. The swollen MDF is easy to identify in the photos. The damage was located on the right side of the sink next to the fridge panel. The cupboard underneath that piece of bench is also showing the first signs of water damage. There is also a photo showing the kitchen without the bench top. What is interesting is that there is no apparent water damage on the left side of the sink, despite the landlord seeing “pools of water” on that side of the bench as well, and the tenants’ evidence they left their dishes on the left side to dry.
This is the landlord’s claim to prove. I am not more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence and submission that there was careless damage. It seems equally possible to me that the damage to the right side only was because of some fault with the bench top. Accordingly this claim is dismissed. Other orders
The bond is refunded in full to the tenants.
Because the tenants have wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenant’s application for suppression is allowed because the tenants are the most successful party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939474 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 46 Randwick Road, Northland, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939474 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 46 Randwick Road, Northland, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions