What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4960335 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4960335?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $937.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $80.92 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4960335?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4960335?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11792967-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4960335 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4960335?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $937.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $80.92 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4960335?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4960335?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11792967-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4960335 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4960335 — net $1,545.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$80.92	Water rates
Repairs: insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: insurance excess
Bed & mattress replacement	$937.50	Bed & mattress replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,545.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,545.42

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
John Ellis must pay [The landlord/s] $1,545.42 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] and [The landlord/s] attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant, Mr John Ellis, or a representative from Pacific Property Management Limited (PPM).
The background (from an earlier order dated 24 October 2024) is set out below: Background
[The landlord/s] (the applicant) owns the property at [Tenancy address suppressed] which is part of the [Apartments]. The respondent, Pacific Property Management Limited (PPM) managed the premises.
On 31 August 2020, PPM signed a residential tenancy agreement with Mr Ellis, the tenant, recording that PPM was the landlord. This tenancy began on 1 September 2020, and [The landlord/s] advises that it came to an end on 29 May 2023. The agreement records that the rent is $450.00 per week and a bond of $1,800.00 was paid. [The landlord/s] alleges that PPM did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
At the end of the tenancy, the property needed to be repaired, following a fire which caused damage. Most of these costs were covered by insurance. There were additional costs, which [The landlord/s] sought from PPM. He filed a claim with the Disputes Tribunal against PPM for breaches under the management contract. The Disputes Tribunal issued an order on 1 August 2024 awarding [The landlord/s] missing rent payments, charges for installation of a heater and rangehood, and the cost of replacement keys and access cards.
[The landlord/s] also sought the bond of $1,800.00 which was received by PPM in September 2020 from Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ). The Disputes Tribunal referee noted that, having spoken to Tenancy Services, he was satisfied that this bond was never lodged. Current application and proceedings
On 6 August 2024 the applicant filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal. It appears the original application named Mr Ellis, the tenant, as the respondent. As the application was filed more than two months after the tenancy ended, Tenancy Services sought further information regarding the tenant’s current address for service. The application was then amended, and PPM was identified as the tenant/respondent. The applicant sought payment from the bond, rent arrears of $900.00, water charges, and compensation for damage. The total claimed was $2,562.20.
Following the first hearing, it was determined that as the Tribunal can only deal with disputes between landlords and tenants, there was no jurisdiction for the Tribunal to consider the application, in its current form.
Since [The landlord/s] did initially file an application against the tenant, as recommended by the Disputes Tribunal, the hearing was adjourned part-heard, so the tenant could be joined as a party and effective service could take place.
A second hearing was held. There was no appearance by a representative from PPM. While Mr Ellis (the tenant) was to be joined as a party to the proceedings, this had not occurred. At the hearing, [The landlord’s representative] and [The landlord/s] stated they had been unable to locate Mr Ellis. [The landlord/s] was then given the opportunity to provide further evidence of his attempts to locate him, including emails/telephone numbers. Findings following the current hearing
[The landlord/s] confirmed that the following was claimed from the tenant: • Rent arrears of $900.00 • Watercare bill of $81.96 • Insurance excess of $500.00 for repairs due to tenant damage. • Additional repair costs of $1,124.70 • Replacement of bed and mattress: $937.50
These claims are considered below. Rent arrears and water charges
The landlord states that the tenancy ended on 29 May 2023. He seeks $900.00 in rent arrears, and explained that the rent was only paid to 22 May 2023. However, a rent summary or rent records showing rent payments, has not been produced. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
The landlord has provided the water invoice received from the body corporate. After deduction of fixed charges, the amount payable by the tenant for the final water bill is $80.92, which is awarded above. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

From the evidence produced by the landlord, I am satisfied that the tenant was responsible for the damage to the premises. The email correspondence from the apartment complex building manager records that the tenant was cooking and there was a fire in the kitchen, causing damage to the kitchen area. The sprinklers were activated, so there was also water damage. The landlord states that the total repair costs were around $37,000.00. He seeks the insurance excess of $500.00, which is awarded above.
The landlord also incurred the cost of replacing the bed and mattress, which was not covered by insurance. Evidence of the damage, along with the relevant invoice, was produced. The amount claimed of $937.50 is awarded above.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord also sought additional repair costs of $1,124.70, and provided the invoice. However, in the absence of photographic evidence showing the damage, this claim is dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee
An application for suppression has been made by the landlord. The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details, in view of the landlord being substantially successful in the proceedings.
The landlord’s request for the filing fee is awarded on the same basis.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4960335 — net $1,545.42 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$80.92	Water rates
Repairs: insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: insurance excess
Bed & mattress replacement	$937.50	Bed & mattress replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,545.42
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,545.42

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
John Ellis must pay [The landlord/s] $1,545.42 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] and [The landlord/s] attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant, Mr John Ellis, or a representative from Pacific Property Management Limited (PPM).
The background (from an earlier order dated 24 October 2024) is set out below: Background
[The landlord/s] (the applicant) owns the property at [Tenancy address suppressed] which is part of the [Apartments]. The respondent, Pacific Property Management Limited (PPM) managed the premises.
On 31 August 2020, PPM signed a residential tenancy agreement with Mr Ellis, the tenant, recording that PPM was the landlord. This tenancy began on 1 September 2020, and [The landlord/s] advises that it came to an end on 29 May 2023. The agreement records that the rent is $450.00 per week and a bond of $1,800.00 was paid. [The landlord/s] alleges that PPM did not lodge the bond with the Bond Centre.
At the end of the tenancy, the property needed to be repaired, following a fire which caused damage. Most of these costs were covered by insurance. There were additional costs, which [The landlord/s] sought from PPM. He filed a claim with the Disputes Tribunal against PPM for breaches under the management contract. The Disputes Tribunal issued an order on 1 August 2024 awarding [The landlord/s] missing rent payments, charges for installation of a heater and rangehood, and the cost of replacement keys and access cards.
[The landlord/s] also sought the bond of $1,800.00 which was received by PPM in September 2020 from Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ). The Disputes Tribunal referee noted that, having spoken to Tenancy Services, he was satisfied that this bond was never lodged. Current application and proceedings
On 6 August 2024 the applicant filed an application with the Tenancy Tribunal. It appears the original application named Mr Ellis, the tenant, as the respondent. As the application was filed more than two months after the tenancy ended, Tenancy Services sought further information regarding the tenant’s current address for service. The application was then amended, and PPM was identified as the tenant/respondent. The applicant sought payment from the bond, rent arrears of $900.00, water charges, and compensation for damage. The total claimed was $2,562.20.
Following the first hearing, it was determined that as the Tribunal can only deal with disputes between landlords and tenants, there was no jurisdiction for the Tribunal to consider the application, in its current form.
Since [The landlord/s] did initially file an application against the tenant, as recommended by the Disputes Tribunal, the hearing was adjourned part-heard, so the tenant could be joined as a party and effective service could take place.
A second hearing was held. There was no appearance by a representative from PPM. While Mr Ellis (the tenant) was to be joined as a party to the proceedings, this had not occurred. At the hearing, [The landlord’s representative] and [The landlord/s] stated they had been unable to locate Mr Ellis. [The landlord/s] was then given the opportunity to provide further evidence of his attempts to locate him, including emails/telephone numbers. Findings following the current hearing
[The landlord/s] confirmed that the following was claimed from the tenant: • Rent arrears of $900.00 • Watercare bill of $81.96 • Insurance excess of $500.00 for repairs due to tenant damage. • Additional repair costs of $1,124.70 • Replacement of bed and mattress: $937.50
These claims are considered below. Rent arrears and water charges
The landlord states that the tenancy ended on 29 May 2023. He seeks $900.00 in rent arrears, and explained that the rent was only paid to 22 May 2023. However, a rent summary or rent records showing rent payments, has not been produced. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.
The landlord has provided the water invoice received from the body corporate. After deduction of fixed charges, the amount payable by the tenant for the final water bill is $80.92, which is awarded above. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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) of the 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.
When determining the quantum of compensation, betterment and depreciation must be taken into account. Applying the principle of betterment, 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, the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan must be considered.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

From the evidence produced by the landlord, I am satisfied that the tenant was responsible for the damage to the premises. The email correspondence from the apartment complex building manager records that the tenant was cooking and there was a fire in the kitchen, causing damage to the kitchen area. The sprinklers were activated, so there was also water damage. The landlord states that the total repair costs were around $37,000.00. He seeks the insurance excess of $500.00, which is awarded above.
The landlord also incurred the cost of replacing the bed and mattress, which was not covered by insurance. Evidence of the damage, along with the relevant invoice, was produced. The amount claimed of $937.50 is awarded above.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord also sought additional repair costs of $1,124.70, and provided the invoice. However, in the absence of photographic evidence showing the damage, this claim is dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee
An application for suppression has been made by the landlord. The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details, in view of the landlord being substantially successful in the proceedings.
The landlord’s request for the filing fee is awarded on the same basis.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4960335 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4960335 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions