What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4946755?

The tribunal order states: Abdullah Alrashidi must pay Edinburgh Realty Limited - As Agent For Mmva

How much money was awarded in case 4946755?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $529.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4946755?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4946755?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11049733-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4946755?

The tribunal order states: Abdullah Alrashidi must pay Edinburgh Realty Limited - As Agent For Mmva

How much money was awarded in case 4946755?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $529.57 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4946755?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4946755?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11049733-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 4, 1 Queens Gardens, Dunedin Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4946755 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4946755 — net $1,556.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4/8/2024	$529.57	Rent arrears to 4/8/2024
Insurance excess	$1,000.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,556.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,556.57

Abdullah Alrashidi must pay Edinburgh Realty Limited - As Agent For Mmva Limited $1,556.57 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The application by Abdullah Alrashidi for compensation of $500.00 is dismissed.

The application by Edinburgh Realty Limited - As Agent For Mmva Limited for further compensation of $12,989.15 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the tenant by teleconference and his lawyer in person.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

After the tenant vacated on 24/6/2024 his fixed term tenancy was assigned on 4/8/2024.

The landlord sought rent arrears, after the bond of $529.57 and provided rent records.

The tenant did not dispute he owed the arrears.

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.

The landlord sought compensation of $13,989.15 as follows: a. $12,989.15 repair costs for a leak in the shower due to the installation of a bidet b. $1,000.00 insurance excess

In support of their claim the landlord provided a timeline of events, a photograph dated 28/5/2024 of the second bidet, text messages, email correspondence, builder’s invoices, photographs dated 6/7/2024, plumbers report of 27/9/2024 and an insurance assessors report of 31/5/2024.

During the hearing at the request of the Tribunal the landlord rang the builder who on 24/4/2024 discovered the bidet installed in the shower and subsequently undertook the repair work.

The landlord submitted that the tenant installed a bidet without consent and subsequently installed a second bidet, after being advised he could not do so, which was discovered on 28/5/2024.

Extensive water damage occurred to the premises and lesser damage to a downstairs flat which the landlord believed was intentional and due to the installation of the bidets.

As the insurance company assessed the damage as gradual the maximum insurance payout was limited to $4,000.00, after deduction of the excess.

The landlord claimed the balance of the builder’s costs of $12,989.15 and the insurance excess from the tenant.

In response, the tenant claimed compensation of $500.00 for the six week period he had limited access to the kitchen and living room while repairs were undertaken.

The tenant’s lawyer submitted that the tenant used a stand alone bidet system from January 2023 when he arrived in the country until it broke.

The tenant then purchased a replacement system from a hardware supplier, which he was advised he could install himself without altering any pipes. He installed this to the shower mixer.

After the builder removed the bidet installed to the mixer, the tenant sought consent from the landlord to install another bidet, which he attached to the shower head.

The tenant said he thought the landlord’s refusal of consent for the second bidet related only to one attached to the shower mixer, hence why he used the shower head.

In support of the tenant’s position that the bidet would not have caused the damage claimed the tenant provided an opinion dated 18/9/2024 from a plumber, who did not inspect the premises.

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 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.

I am persuaded by the evidence that damage was caused during the tenancy to skirting boards, walls, shower liner and kitchen floor in the tenant’s flat and to a lesser extent in the downstairs flat.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear.

Although the evidence supports that the damage was gradual, I accept the evidence of the builder and insurance assessor that it likely occurred over a reasonably short timeframe due to the conditions in the bathroom which produced the mould in the wall linings.

I consider little weight can be given to the evidence of the plumber provided by the tenant who felt, based on photographs and emails, that it was more likely the shower mixer outlet pipe leaked into the wall cavity. This is especially so because the plumber added a caveat that he thought the leak may have been exacerbated by the pressure from the pipework while the bidet was in use.

The evidence of the tenant was that he used the bidet daily, but it is unclear whether the plumber was aware of this fact.

After carefully considering all the evidence, in particular that of the builder and insurance assessor I find that the damage was careless.

The evidence supports that the damage occurred over a period of two to three months, which ties in with the time the tenant had the bidet attached to the shower mixer, between February and April 2024.

Despite the tenant attaching another bidet sometime after 24/4 there is no compelling evidence to support that the damage was significantly aggravated by the time that bidet was removed on 28/5. Had there been evidence of further damage then I would have considered the aggravated damage intentional.

The landlord’s claim for compensation for careless damage is successful.

However, the amount of compensation is limited to the insurance excess as the damage was covered by the landlord’s insurance.

The tenant’s claim for compensation fails.

The evidence supports that the repair work did not commence until 27/5/2024 and within four weeks the tenant had left the premises. During that time, he had access to a working bathroom after 24 hours and access, albeit limited, to the kitchen and living room.

Given the extent and type of the damage it is not unreasonable to expect that some inconvenience was liable to occur, and I do not consider in these circumstances that it is reasonable to award compensation to the tenant for that inconvenience.

Moreover, the tenant stopped paying rent on 23/5/2024, which did not assist in mitigating the landlord’s loss.

As the landlord has been largely successful with the application, I have awarded the filing fee.

The landlord did not seek suppression.

No suppression is available to the tenant because he was unsuccessful with his claim.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4946755 — net $1,556.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4/8/2024	$529.57	Rent arrears to 4/8/2024
Insurance excess	$1,000.00	Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,556.57
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,556.57