What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4952916 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $595.23 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4952916?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $568.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952916?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952916?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10992680-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4952916 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $595.23 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4952916?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $568.23 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4952916?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4952916?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10992680-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4952916 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4952916 — net $595.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for damage	$568.23	Compensation for damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$595.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$595.23

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $595.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 30 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage at the premises and reimbursement of the filing fee.
This tenancy commenced on 23 March 2023 and is ongoing. The tenant rented a one-bedroom apartment in a block of apartments in the city. The apartment has a bedroom, a living room and a study separated from the living room by a sliding door. DescriptionLandlord Compensation for damage$568.23 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$595.23 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$595.23

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.

Was there damage to the premises beyond fair wear and tear?

On 26 July 2023 there was a fire in the tenant’s apartment due to a candle falling over. This resulted in damage to the apartment. There was water damage to the apartment building due to the sprinklers being activated. There is no dispute that the damage occurred.
The landlord provided photographs of the damage to the apartment. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.

Was the damage carelessly or intentionally caused?

The landlord claims that the damage was intentionally caused and seeks reimbursement of the following: (a)The apartment building insurance excess fee of $5000.00 (b)Reimbursement of body corporate charges invoiced to the owner for extra work due to the damage, in the sum of $1840.00. (c)Reimbursement of property management charges for extra work invoiced to the owner due to the damage, in the sum of $1725.00.
The landlord stated that the tenant has already paid the sum of $1511.77 towards remedying the damage and this amount can be deducted from any amount ordered.
The landlord claimed that the damage was intentional for two reasons, firstly that the tenant had a cat in the premises in breach of the body corporate rules and the cat may have caused the fire and secondly that there was evidence of a burn mark on a desk in the apartment suggesting that there had been a previous incident.
The tenant acknowledged that the damage was careless but denied that the damage was intentional.
The tenant stated that she lit a candle and placed it on a foil tray on top of a box in the study and went to sleep. She stated that she awoke to the smoke alarm going off and discovered the fire and texted the landlord immediately. The tenant stated that she does not know how the candle fell down.
There was conflicting evidence from the parties about the whereabouts of the cat. The tenant stated that when she awoke she found the cat in the living room and picked up the cat and contacted a friend who then came and removed the cat due to the water. In the photograph, provided by the tenant to the landlord on the day, the sliding door between the study and living room is closed but the verbal evidence given by both parties in the hearing was conflicting and not clear on this point.
A photograph provided by the landlord taken after the fire shows the candle fallen over on the foil tray and the lid of the box it is sitting on has fallen in.
The landlord also provided a photograph of a burn mark on a desk in the apartment. The tenant stated this was caused by a candle that she moved from the bathroom and the hot lid fell off and made a mark on the table.
The incident report provided by the landlord dated 27 July 2023 regarding the fire records under the heading “Fire” “Heat Source Candle” and under “Indicated cause” - “Carelessness with heat source.”
Having carefully considered the documentary evidence, the photographs and the submissions of the parties I find on the balance of probabilities that the damage was carelessly caused for the following reasons: (a)The incident report in relation to the fire records the cause as carelessness. (b)The photograph provided shows a candle on a foil tray fallen over. Leaving a candle unattended on a potentially unstable surface is careless. (c)The presence of a cat in the premises is a breach of the body corporate rules. There is insufficient evidence that the cat caused the fire. There is no causal connection between keeping a cat and an intention to start a fire. (d)One previous different minor event relating to a candle confirms the carelessness of the tenant but is not sufficient to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant allowed a situation to continue knowing that damage is a certainty. (e)In this case there is insufficient evidence provided to prove it is more likely than not that the tenant intended to cause damage or that the tenant did something from which damage was a certainty as set out in the established case law.
As the Tribunal has found that the damage is caused carelessly, and it 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.
In this case the lesser amount is four weeks’ rent. The weekly rent is $520.00 so the total liability is $2080.00. The parties agree that the tenant has already paid $1511.77 towards electrical repairs. Therefore, the Tribunal orders the tenant to pay the balance of $568.23. Filing fee and Suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having considered the factors in this case, including that this is an ongoing tenancy, the Tribunal considers that the interests of the parties outweighs the public interest in their personal details and orders suppression of all party identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4952916 — net $595.23 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation for damage	$568.23	Compensation for damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$595.23
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$595.23

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $595.23 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 30 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage at the premises and reimbursement of the filing fee.
This tenancy commenced on 23 March 2023 and is ongoing. The tenant rented a one-bedroom apartment in a block of apartments in the city. The apartment has a bedroom, a living room and a study separated from the living room by a sliding door. DescriptionLandlord Compensation for damage$568.23 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$595.23 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$595.23

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.

Was there damage to the premises beyond fair wear and tear?

On 26 July 2023 there was a fire in the tenant’s apartment due to a candle falling over. This resulted in damage to the apartment. There was water damage to the apartment building due to the sprinklers being activated. There is no dispute that the damage occurred.
The landlord provided photographs of the damage to the apartment. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.

Was the damage carelessly or intentionally caused?

The landlord claims that the damage was intentionally caused and seeks reimbursement of the following: (a)The apartment building insurance excess fee of $5000.00 (b)Reimbursement of body corporate charges invoiced to the owner for extra work due to the damage, in the sum of $1840.00. (c)Reimbursement of property management charges for extra work invoiced to the owner due to the damage, in the sum of $1725.00.
The landlord stated that the tenant has already paid the sum of $1511.77 towards remedying the damage and this amount can be deducted from any amount ordered.
The landlord claimed that the damage was intentional for two reasons, firstly that the tenant had a cat in the premises in breach of the body corporate rules and the cat may have caused the fire and secondly that there was evidence of a burn mark on a desk in the apartment suggesting that there had been a previous incident.
The tenant acknowledged that the damage was careless but denied that the damage was intentional.
The tenant stated that she lit a candle and placed it on a foil tray on top of a box in the study and went to sleep. She stated that she awoke to the smoke alarm going off and discovered the fire and texted the landlord immediately. The tenant stated that she does not know how the candle fell down.
There was conflicting evidence from the parties about the whereabouts of the cat. The tenant stated that when she awoke she found the cat in the living room and picked up the cat and contacted a friend who then came and removed the cat due to the water. In the photograph, provided by the tenant to the landlord on the day, the sliding door between the study and living room is closed but the verbal evidence given by both parties in the hearing was conflicting and not clear on this point.
A photograph provided by the landlord taken after the fire shows the candle fallen over on the foil tray and the lid of the box it is sitting on has fallen in.
The landlord also provided a photograph of a burn mark on a desk in the apartment. The tenant stated this was caused by a candle that she moved from the bathroom and the hot lid fell off and made a mark on the table.
The incident report provided by the landlord dated 27 July 2023 regarding the fire records under the heading “Fire” “Heat Source Candle” and under “Indicated cause” - “Carelessness with heat source.”
Having carefully considered the documentary evidence, the photographs and the submissions of the parties I find on the balance of probabilities that the damage was carelessly caused for the following reasons: (a)The incident report in relation to the fire records the cause as carelessness. (b)The photograph provided shows a candle on a foil tray fallen over. Leaving a candle unattended on a potentially unstable surface is careless. (c)The presence of a cat in the premises is a breach of the body corporate rules. There is insufficient evidence that the cat caused the fire. There is no causal connection between keeping a cat and an intention to start a fire. (d)One previous different minor event relating to a candle confirms the carelessness of the tenant but is not sufficient to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant allowed a situation to continue knowing that damage is a certainty. (e)In this case there is insufficient evidence provided to prove it is more likely than not that the tenant intended to cause damage or that the tenant did something from which damage was a certainty as set out in the established case law.
As the Tribunal has found that the damage is caused carelessly, and it 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.
In this case the lesser amount is four weeks’ rent. The weekly rent is $520.00 so the total liability is $2080.00. The parties agree that the tenant has already paid $1511.77 towards electrical repairs. Therefore, the Tribunal orders the tenant to pay the balance of $568.23. Filing fee and Suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Having considered the factors in this case, including that this is an ongoing tenancy, the Tribunal considers that the interests of the parties outweighs the public interest in their personal details and orders suppression of all party identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952916 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4952916 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Was there damage to the premises beyond fair wear and tear?

Was the damage carelessly or intentionally caused?

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?

Was there damage to the premises beyond fair wear and tear?

Was the damage carelessly or intentionally caused?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions