What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4972354 about?

The tribunal order states: Nova Leggett and Taila Jennings are to pay [The landlord/s] $570.40 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4972354?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972354?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972354?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10898148-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4972354 about?

The tribunal order states: Nova Leggett and Taila Jennings are to pay [The landlord/s] $570.40 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4972354?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4972354?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4972354?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10898148-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 3, 37 Bellvue Avenue, Papanui, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4972354 — Property damage

Order

Nova Leggett and Taila Jennings are to pay [The landlord/s] $570.40 from the bond, being compensation for the replacement hob glass top.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,695.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $570.40 Nova Leggett and Taila Jennings: $1,124.60
No other orders are made.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord had applied for compensation via the bond.
The tenant had applied for the return of their bond.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
The kitchen hob glass top was discovered cracked at the end of the tenancy. It was not immediately obvious. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. While I considered, but discounted, prior underlying damage that meant the crack resulted from normal use.
The landlord incurred two invoiced costs. The first was $126.50, dated 29 July 2024. The second was $676.20 for the replacement of the glass top, dated 6 August 2024.
The tenant raised a concern that the first invoice was effectively a paid quote. I do not read it the same way but accept there are potentially costs in that invoice that might have been avoided, especially the reference to an insurance quote being prepared.
The insurance details, including any excess amount, were not provided as part of the tenancy agreement. They should have been (see section 13A Residential Tenancies Act 1986). It was later advised to the tenant as having an excess of $1000.00 per claim. The replacement cost being less than excess made any insurance claim moot.
The second invoice was for the replacement glass top and it appears consistent with what might be expected and a reasonable cost.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
However, in practicality, this principle is oversimplified, as it is often nearly impossible to place a party in the exact same position for a variety of reasons and the Tribunal’s task becomes to attempt to do so as closely as possible through compensation. To prevent overcompensation or a windfall to the applicant, the concept of betterment has developed, which essentially limits an applicant’s award on account of being placed in a better position than prior to the loss.
The premises was newly built in 2022. The glass top was original. This was the third tenancy at the premises. No entry photos from this tenancy commencement were available. An earlier one was provided by the landlord after the hearing.
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 glass top at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
I have arrived at the compensation sum by discounting 50% of the initial invoice. This reflects the brief to the technician appears to include an insurance quote, as well as the prior unstated insurance excess to the tenant. The knowledge of the excess may have prompted an alternative, cheaper approach. That equates to $63.25 compensation for the first invoice.
The replacement cost in the second invoice is awarded at 75% residual value 1 . This reflects an expected useful life of eight years and the two years of tenant usage. That equates to $507.40.
The total compensation awarded is $570.40. Filing fee
I leave each party to carry their cost of filing. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Order

Nova Leggett and Taila Jennings are to pay [The landlord/s] $570.40 from the bond, being compensation for the replacement hob glass top.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,695.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $570.40 Nova Leggett and Taila Jennings: $1,124.60
No other orders are made.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord had applied for compensation via the bond.
The tenant had applied for the return of their bond.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

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.
“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.
The kitchen hob glass top was discovered cracked at the end of the tenancy. It was not immediately obvious. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. While I considered, but discounted, prior underlying damage that meant the crack resulted from normal use.
The landlord incurred two invoiced costs. The first was $126.50, dated 29 July 2024. The second was $676.20 for the replacement of the glass top, dated 6 August 2024.
The tenant raised a concern that the first invoice was effectively a paid quote. I do not read it the same way but accept there are potentially costs in that invoice that might have been avoided, especially the reference to an insurance quote being prepared.
The insurance details, including any excess amount, were not provided as part of the tenancy agreement. They should have been (see section 13A Residential Tenancies Act 1986). It was later advised to the tenant as having an excess of $1000.00 per claim. The replacement cost being less than excess made any insurance claim moot.
The second invoice was for the replacement glass top and it appears consistent with what might be expected and a reasonable cost.
It is a well-accepted principle when awarding damages that, so far as money can do it, the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. Liability exists for foreseeable losses flowing from the breach of a tenancy agreement.
However, in practicality, this principle is oversimplified, as it is often nearly impossible to place a party in the exact same position for a variety of reasons and the Tribunal’s task becomes to attempt to do so as closely as possible through compensation. To prevent overcompensation or a windfall to the applicant, the concept of betterment has developed, which essentially limits an applicant’s award on account of being placed in a better position than prior to the loss.
The premises was newly built in 2022. The glass top was original. This was the third tenancy at the premises. No entry photos from this tenancy commencement were available. An earlier one was provided by the landlord after the hearing.
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 glass top at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
I have arrived at the compensation sum by discounting 50% of the initial invoice. This reflects the brief to the technician appears to include an insurance quote, as well as the prior unstated insurance excess to the tenant. The knowledge of the excess may have prompted an alternative, cheaper approach. That equates to $63.25 compensation for the first invoice.
The replacement cost in the second invoice is awarded at 75% residual value 1 . This reflects an expected useful life of eight years and the two years of tenant usage. That equates to $507.40.
The total compensation awarded is $570.40. Filing fee
I leave each party to carry their cost of filing. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been wholly successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972354 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 37 Bellvue Avenue, Papanui, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4972354 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 3, 37 Bellvue Avenue, Papanui, Christchurch

At a glance

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

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