What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4949853 about?

The tribunal order states: Koro Lyttle and Daisy Pitihira to pay [The landlord/s] $1,220.47 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4949853?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Excess – Replace Kitchen Flooring: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Paint For Kitchen Ceiling: $246.10 awarded to landlord; Replace Internal Garage Door: $447.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4949853?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4949853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11051349-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4949853 about?

The tribunal order states: Koro Lyttle and Daisy Pitihira to pay [The landlord/s] $1,220.47 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4949853?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Excess – Replace Kitchen Flooring: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Paint For Kitchen Ceiling: $246.10 awarded to landlord; Replace Internal Garage Door: $447.37 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4949853?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4949853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11051349-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4949853 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4949853 — net $1,220.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Excess – Replace kitchen flooring	$500.00	Repairs: Excess – Replace kitchen flooring
Replace internal garage door	$447.37	Replace internal garage door
Repairs: Paint for Kitchen ceiling	$246.10	Repairs: Paint for Kitchen ceiling
Net award	$1,220.47
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,220.47

Order

Koro Lyttle and Daisy Pitihira to pay [The landlord/s] $1,220.47 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,220.47 Koro Lyttle and Daisy Pitihira: $1,139.53
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.
The tenants did not join the video conference and when they were telephoned on the phone numbers provided the calls went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenants were properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The tenancy commenced on 22 August 2022 and ended on 9 July 2024.
The premises was built in 2021 and the tenants were the first occupants of the home. Tenant’s case
The tenants applied for refund of the bond, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. The tenant’s claim is dismissed; however, I make an order that they are to be paid the balance of the bond as set out above. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Landlord’s case
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

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 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Kitchen flooring i. The landlord claimed the insurance excess of $500.00 as the kitchen’s vinyl floor had been damaged. The landlord believed one area of damage was from the fridge being moved carelessly. The landlord was uncertain as to how the other area of damage, being a hole in the vinyl, occurred. The landlord provided quotes ($4,483.26 + $776.25) in support of the claim. ii. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and likely caused by the tenant’ s careless action and the tenant did not disprove liability for this damage. I make an order for the amount of the insurance excess of $500.00 which is not above the statutory maximum amount that may be ordered for careless damage. b. The internal garage door i. The landlord claimed the internal garage door had been replaced by an inferior door by the tenant. The replacement door had visible putty around the door handle and the landlord advised it did not adequately fit the door space. The landlord submitted an invoice in support of the claim for $497.08. ii. The tenant has a responsibility to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. See section 40 (1) (d) of the RTA) The tenant had not informed the landlord that the door had been damaged and replaced it without the landlord’s knowledge or consent. iii. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and likely caused by the tenant’ s careless actions in damaging the original door and the tenant did not disprove liability for this damage. I have allowed for depreciation (10%) and ordered $447.37. c. Kitchen ceiling i. The kitchen ceiling had been repainted by the tenant with the wrong colour. The landlord claimed $246.10, the amount of the invoice to purchase the correct paint. ii. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and likely caused by the tenant’ s careless action (in applying the incorrect paint) and the tenant did not disprove liability for this damage. I make in order for $246.10.
The landlord provided pre and post tenancy inspection reports and oral evidence, quotes and invoices in support of the claims.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Wall damage
The landlord had applied for compensation in respect of damage to walls and hallways in the premises but at the hearing the landlord advised they were withdrawing this claim. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Bond
The bond is to be paid to the parties immediately as divided in the order above. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4949853 — net $1,220.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Excess – Replace kitchen flooring	$500.00	Repairs: Excess – Replace kitchen flooring
Replace internal garage door	$447.37	Replace internal garage door
Repairs: Paint for Kitchen ceiling	$246.10	Repairs: Paint for Kitchen ceiling
Net award	$1,220.47
Bond	$2,360.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,220.47

Order

Koro Lyttle and Daisy Pitihira to pay [The landlord/s] $1,220.47 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,220.47 Koro Lyttle and Daisy Pitihira: $1,139.53
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.
The tenants did not join the video conference and when they were telephoned on the phone numbers provided the calls went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenants were properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The tenancy commenced on 22 August 2022 and ended on 9 July 2024.
The premises was built in 2021 and the tenants were the first occupants of the home. Tenant’s case
The tenants applied for refund of the bond, compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenants did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. The tenant’s claim is dismissed; however, I make an order that they are to be paid the balance of the bond as set out above. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Landlord’s case
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

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 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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Kitchen flooring i. The landlord claimed the insurance excess of $500.00 as the kitchen’s vinyl floor had been damaged. The landlord believed one area of damage was from the fridge being moved carelessly. The landlord was uncertain as to how the other area of damage, being a hole in the vinyl, occurred. The landlord provided quotes ($4,483.26 + $776.25) in support of the claim. ii. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and likely caused by the tenant’ s careless action and the tenant did not disprove liability for this damage. I make an order for the amount of the insurance excess of $500.00 which is not above the statutory maximum amount that may be ordered for careless damage. b. The internal garage door i. The landlord claimed the internal garage door had been replaced by an inferior door by the tenant. The replacement door had visible putty around the door handle and the landlord advised it did not adequately fit the door space. The landlord submitted an invoice in support of the claim for $497.08. ii. The tenant has a responsibility to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. See section 40 (1) (d) of the RTA) The tenant had not informed the landlord that the door had been damaged and replaced it without the landlord’s knowledge or consent. iii. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and likely caused by the tenant’ s careless actions in damaging the original door and the tenant did not disprove liability for this damage. I have allowed for depreciation (10%) and ordered $447.37. c. Kitchen ceiling i. The kitchen ceiling had been repainted by the tenant with the wrong colour. The landlord claimed $246.10, the amount of the invoice to purchase the correct paint. ii. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and likely caused by the tenant’ s careless action (in applying the incorrect paint) and the tenant did not disprove liability for this damage. I make in order for $246.10.
The landlord provided pre and post tenancy inspection reports and oral evidence, quotes and invoices in support of the claims.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Wall damage
The landlord had applied for compensation in respect of damage to walls and hallways in the premises but at the hearing the landlord advised they were withdrawing this claim. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Bond
The bond is to be paid to the parties immediately as divided in the order above. Filing fee
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4949853 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4949853 — 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