What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4949613 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4949613?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4949613?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4949613?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11210568-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4949613 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4949613?

Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4949613?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4949613?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11210568-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4949613 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4949613. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Loss due to front door being damaged	$500.00		Loss due to front door being damaged

Order

The parties names and identifying details must not be published.
[The tenant] must return the washing machine to the landlord without delay.
[The tenant] must pay [the landlord] $500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applies for compensation for alleged damage and for a washing machine and a dryer that were missing from the premises at the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant liable for the missing washing machine and dryer?

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
The premises’ previous owner (not the landlord who had just purchased the property) left a washing machine behind.
The tenant and his partner had their own good quality washing machine and dryer when they moved into the premises so did not need the washing machine or the dryer.
The tenant says the washing machine was rundown and smelt bad. It was just in the way. He moved it to his mother’s factory to get it out of the way. He did not think the landlord would want it back. However, he is happy to return it.
The Tribunal will order the tenant to return the washing machine.
The tenant does not remember any dryer being at the premises when the tenancy began.
Mr Lee, who I understand was [the landlord’s] partner, gave evidence under promise at the hearing. He was the de facto property manager at the beginning of the tenancy. He submitted a photograph of the dryer he had taken at about 8:00am on the morning the tenancy began on 19 November 2021. At the time, the previous owners had not moved out, and the tenant did not move in until a few hours after.
However, further bolstering Mr Lee’s evidence, a Property Inspection document dated 19 November 2021 refers to “washing machine/dryer” (and is written in the tenant’s hand). Mr Lee says that the tenant signed this document when he moved in.
I accept Mr Lee’s evidence on this point. I find it more likely than not that the dryer was present when the tenancy began.
What happened to the dryer is now lost in the mists of time. It was there at the beginning of the tenancy but was not there at its end.
The tenant is liable for the missing dryer.
However, the previous owners left the dryer behind indicating it had little or no value to them.
Mr Lee could not give a likely age for the dryer. In the photographs, the dryer looks dated and old.
The Tenancy Services website’s Depreciation Calculator attributes dryers as having a 6.66 year useful life. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e)(v)
I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that the dryer was less than 6.66 years old or that it had any marketable value.
I make no monetary order for the dryer because it is not proven the landlord suffered any financial loss from its absence from the premises at the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant liable for dog-scratch damage to the front door?

The landlord claims for loss related to the tenant’s dog scratching the front door and premises windows.
To succeed in a damage claim 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. 2
If the tenant is found liable, it is incumbent on the landlord to prove their loss.
The tenant accepts his dog damaged the front door when it got spooked during Guy Fawkes in 2022. Since then, he has ensured his dog is properly secured when fireworks are likely to occur.
I am not satisfied that the tenant was reasonably prudent in respect to the damage. It is well known that many dogs will be disturbed by fireworks. Guy Fawkes occurs on a particular date every year. It would have been reasonably prudent to have secured the dog in 2022.
The landlord attempted to sell the house to demolition recycling companies. However, the companies were not interested. It was suggested that may be due to the scratch damage. However, there was no direct evidence from the renovation companies of this and is improbable.
Mr Lee’s company produced a quote for $1,191.40 to repair the door. That cost seems excessive and Mr Lee’s company is not independent.
However, I am satisfied that Mr Lee would have attempted to sell the front door second hand if it had not been severely scratched. Therefore, the landlord’s loss is to be assessed by considering the likely value of the door had it been sold second hand.
Neither party provided independent evidence from a professional person such as a second-hand door supplier as to what the damaged door would have been worth had it been sold undamaged, or from a qualified independent repairer. 2 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Rather, they provided printouts of TradeMe advertisements of purportedly comparable doors. Mr Lee described the door as being in excellent condition prior to the damage. [The tenant] described it as “aged and poorly maintained, with locks that did not work properly”.
From the photographs and the evidence I have heard, it is probable the door was in reasonable, saleable condition prior to the damage.
The landlord would presumably have incurred a cost for Mr Lee’s company removing the (undamaged) door, addressing minor fair wear and tear, advertising the door, storing it, communicating with prospective purchasers, and completing a sale and arranging pickup or delivery. An adjustment should be made for that.
Having reviewed the parties’ TradeMe evidence, the photographs, and all of the circumstances, I assess the landlord’s likely loss as in the vicinity of $500.00.

Is the tenant liable for dog-scratch damage to the windows?

The tenant also accepted his dog scratched the windows.
The tenant said that the scratching was to a tinted film that had been added to the windows. He believes he remediated the damage by removing the film from the damaged areas.
Mr Lee said that the windows above the scratched areas still had the film, and the overall effect was to make the windows unsaleable.
The photographs indicate that the aluminium joinery is single-glazed and dated. In one of the photographs, the tinted film appears to be coming away in an area that was not scratched. I doubt that if would have been economic to demolish around the joinery to carefully remove it, store, and sell it.
Therefore, unlike the front door, I find it improbable that the aluminium joinery and windows would have had saleable value absent the tenant’s removing the damaged tinted film.
It follows, I am not satisfied the landlord suffered any loss due to the tenant's dog scratching the windows.
This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee
I make no order for the filing fee because the landlord has only partially succeeded with her claim. Non-publication
The parties request non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties have had substantial success in the proceedings. The Tribunal has made an order in the landlord’s favour, but on the other hand the tenant successfully resisted about $5,000.00 of the landlord’s claim.
I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified by the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the parties names and identifying details including the tenancy address.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4949613. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Loss due to front door being damaged	$500.00		Loss due to front door being damaged

Order

The parties names and identifying details must not be published.
[The tenant] must return the washing machine to the landlord without delay.
[The tenant] must pay [the landlord] $500.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord applies for compensation for alleged damage and for a washing machine and a dryer that were missing from the premises at the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant liable for the missing washing machine and dryer?

At the end of the tenancy, tenants must leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
The premises’ previous owner (not the landlord who had just purchased the property) left a washing machine behind.
The tenant and his partner had their own good quality washing machine and dryer when they moved into the premises so did not need the washing machine or the dryer.
The tenant says the washing machine was rundown and smelt bad. It was just in the way. He moved it to his mother’s factory to get it out of the way. He did not think the landlord would want it back. However, he is happy to return it.
The Tribunal will order the tenant to return the washing machine.
The tenant does not remember any dryer being at the premises when the tenancy began.
Mr Lee, who I understand was [the landlord’s] partner, gave evidence under promise at the hearing. He was the de facto property manager at the beginning of the tenancy. He submitted a photograph of the dryer he had taken at about 8:00am on the morning the tenancy began on 19 November 2021. At the time, the previous owners had not moved out, and the tenant did not move in until a few hours after.
However, further bolstering Mr Lee’s evidence, a Property Inspection document dated 19 November 2021 refers to “washing machine/dryer” (and is written in the tenant’s hand). Mr Lee says that the tenant signed this document when he moved in.
I accept Mr Lee’s evidence on this point. I find it more likely than not that the dryer was present when the tenancy began.
What happened to the dryer is now lost in the mists of time. It was there at the beginning of the tenancy but was not there at its end.
The tenant is liable for the missing dryer.
However, the previous owners left the dryer behind indicating it had little or no value to them.
Mr Lee could not give a likely age for the dryer. In the photographs, the dryer looks dated and old.
The Tenancy Services website’s Depreciation Calculator attributes dryers as having a 6.66 year useful life. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 40(1)(e)(v)
I am not satisfied that it is more likely than not that the dryer was less than 6.66 years old or that it had any marketable value.
I make no monetary order for the dryer because it is not proven the landlord suffered any financial loss from its absence from the premises at the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant liable for dog-scratch damage to the front door?

The landlord claims for loss related to the tenant’s dog scratching the front door and premises windows.
To succeed in a damage claim 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. 2
If the tenant is found liable, it is incumbent on the landlord to prove their loss.
The tenant accepts his dog damaged the front door when it got spooked during Guy Fawkes in 2022. Since then, he has ensured his dog is properly secured when fireworks are likely to occur.
I am not satisfied that the tenant was reasonably prudent in respect to the damage. It is well known that many dogs will be disturbed by fireworks. Guy Fawkes occurs on a particular date every year. It would have been reasonably prudent to have secured the dog in 2022.
The landlord attempted to sell the house to demolition recycling companies. However, the companies were not interested. It was suggested that may be due to the scratch damage. However, there was no direct evidence from the renovation companies of this and is improbable.
Mr Lee’s company produced a quote for $1,191.40 to repair the door. That cost seems excessive and Mr Lee’s company is not independent.
However, I am satisfied that Mr Lee would have attempted to sell the front door second hand if it had not been severely scratched. Therefore, the landlord’s loss is to be assessed by considering the likely value of the door had it been sold second hand.
Neither party provided independent evidence from a professional person such as a second-hand door supplier as to what the damaged door would have been worth had it been sold undamaged, or from a qualified independent repairer. 2 RTA, ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Rather, they provided printouts of TradeMe advertisements of purportedly comparable doors. Mr Lee described the door as being in excellent condition prior to the damage. [The tenant] described it as “aged and poorly maintained, with locks that did not work properly”.
From the photographs and the evidence I have heard, it is probable the door was in reasonable, saleable condition prior to the damage.
The landlord would presumably have incurred a cost for Mr Lee’s company removing the (undamaged) door, addressing minor fair wear and tear, advertising the door, storing it, communicating with prospective purchasers, and completing a sale and arranging pickup or delivery. An adjustment should be made for that.
Having reviewed the parties’ TradeMe evidence, the photographs, and all of the circumstances, I assess the landlord’s likely loss as in the vicinity of $500.00.

Is the tenant liable for dog-scratch damage to the windows?

The tenant also accepted his dog scratched the windows.
The tenant said that the scratching was to a tinted film that had been added to the windows. He believes he remediated the damage by removing the film from the damaged areas.
Mr Lee said that the windows above the scratched areas still had the film, and the overall effect was to make the windows unsaleable.
The photographs indicate that the aluminium joinery is single-glazed and dated. In one of the photographs, the tinted film appears to be coming away in an area that was not scratched. I doubt that if would have been economic to demolish around the joinery to carefully remove it, store, and sell it.
Therefore, unlike the front door, I find it improbable that the aluminium joinery and windows would have had saleable value absent the tenant’s removing the damaged tinted film.
It follows, I am not satisfied the landlord suffered any loss due to the tenant's dog scratching the windows.
This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Filing fee
I make no order for the filing fee because the landlord has only partially succeeded with her claim. Non-publication
The parties request non-publication of their names and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Both parties have had substantial success in the proceedings. The Tribunal has made an order in the landlord’s favour, but on the other hand the tenant successfully resisted about $5,000.00 of the landlord’s claim.
I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified by the parties’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal orders non-publication of the parties names and identifying details including the tenancy address.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4949613 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4949613 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the missing washing machine and dryer?

Is the tenant liable for dog-scratch damage to the front door?

Is the tenant liable for dog-scratch damage to the windows?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for the missing washing machine and dryer?

Is the tenant liable for dog-scratch damage to the front door?

Is the tenant liable for dog-scratch damage to the windows?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions