What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4986929 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,227.00 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4986929?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4986929?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4986929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10992011-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4986929 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,227.00 from the bond, calculated

How much money was awarded in case 4986929?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4986929?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4986929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10992011-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

239A Kennedy Road, Onekawa, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4986929 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4986929 — net $1,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Deck repairs	$1,200.00	Deck repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,227.00
Bond	$1,650.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,227.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,227.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $1,650.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,227.00 [The tenant/s]: $423.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for refund of his bond following termination of the tenancy on 1 August 2024.
The landlord then filed an application for compensation for damage to the deck on the premises.
At mediation it was agreed that the claim was limited to $1,650.00, being the excess on the landlord’s insurance policy and the balance of the bond was released to the tenant.

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.
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.
The entry inspection report dated 28 September dated 28 September 2022 notes, as regards the deck, “28 th of April 2021 – deck was coated, needs to be done yearly. White stain on deck 29.9.22”
The tenant did not receive a copy of that report until this claim was made. The landlord confirms that the notation in the report means that the coating on the deck ought to be redone annually, not that the tenant was required to do anything. The landlord confirms that the deck was not recoated during the tenancy.
The tenant’s evidence is that at the end of the tenancy he was told to clean the premises inside and out. The deck had become mouldy so he water blasted it with his water blaster.
Unfortunately, it appears the water blaster may have been on too concentrated a setting and photographs show that clear and deep marks have been made over the deck.
The landlord has provided evidence that the insurance excess on the landlord’s insurance is $1,650.00. The landlord has provided three quotes for different ways of addressing the damage, all of which are for a sum greater than $1650.00.
An insurance claim has not been made but I accept the landlord’s position that steps will need to be taken to remedy the marking on the deck and that the landlord will incur that cost. Analysis
The tenant accepts that the marks on the deck constitute damage than needs to be repaired. It occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant has not proved that it was not caused carelessly or negligently and the landlord is entitled to be compensated from the resulting loss.
In that regard the tenant says that the landlord’s own negligence contributed to the loss, because: a. had the landlord coated the deck annually as per the entry inspection report recommendation, mould would not have appeared on it and the tenant would not have felt it necessary to water blast the deck; and b. had the tenant been provided with a copy of the entry inspection report at the start of the tenancy, he would have been aware that the landlord was supposed to treat the deck annually and he would have left it alone, for the landlord to do;
The tenant also says that allowance should be made for the pre-existing damage to the deck as noted in the entry inspection report.
There is merit to the tenant’s argument that if the landlord had done what the landlord ought to have, in terms of recoating the deck and giving a copy of the entry report to the tenant, the tenant might not have done the work that led to the damage.
However, whether or not the deck required or ought to have required water blasting, it was not the act of water blasting the deck that caused the damage, but the way in which it was done, and the tenant is responsible for that.
In terms of the pre-existing damage, the repair of the deck will repair damage that was there at the start of the tenancy and which the tenant is not responsible for fixing. That damage is shown in the photos and consists of a significant area of the deck which appears to require treatment, likely including sanding and coating.
There is no separate assessment quote for that work but an allowance is made in the compensation awarded for my estimate of the costs attributable to it.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4986929 — net $1,227.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Deck repairs	$1,200.00	Deck repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,227.00
Bond	$1,650.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,227.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,227.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the remaining bond of $1,650.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,227.00 [The tenant/s]: $423.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied for refund of his bond following termination of the tenancy on 1 August 2024.
The landlord then filed an application for compensation for damage to the deck on the premises.
At mediation it was agreed that the claim was limited to $1,650.00, being the excess on the landlord’s insurance policy and the balance of the bond was released to the tenant.

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.
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.
The entry inspection report dated 28 September dated 28 September 2022 notes, as regards the deck, “28 th of April 2021 – deck was coated, needs to be done yearly. White stain on deck 29.9.22”
The tenant did not receive a copy of that report until this claim was made. The landlord confirms that the notation in the report means that the coating on the deck ought to be redone annually, not that the tenant was required to do anything. The landlord confirms that the deck was not recoated during the tenancy.
The tenant’s evidence is that at the end of the tenancy he was told to clean the premises inside and out. The deck had become mouldy so he water blasted it with his water blaster.
Unfortunately, it appears the water blaster may have been on too concentrated a setting and photographs show that clear and deep marks have been made over the deck.
The landlord has provided evidence that the insurance excess on the landlord’s insurance is $1,650.00. The landlord has provided three quotes for different ways of addressing the damage, all of which are for a sum greater than $1650.00.
An insurance claim has not been made but I accept the landlord’s position that steps will need to be taken to remedy the marking on the deck and that the landlord will incur that cost. Analysis
The tenant accepts that the marks on the deck constitute damage than needs to be repaired. It occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant has not proved that it was not caused carelessly or negligently and the landlord is entitled to be compensated from the resulting loss.
In that regard the tenant says that the landlord’s own negligence contributed to the loss, because: a. had the landlord coated the deck annually as per the entry inspection report recommendation, mould would not have appeared on it and the tenant would not have felt it necessary to water blast the deck; and b. had the tenant been provided with a copy of the entry inspection report at the start of the tenancy, he would have been aware that the landlord was supposed to treat the deck annually and he would have left it alone, for the landlord to do;
The tenant also says that allowance should be made for the pre-existing damage to the deck as noted in the entry inspection report.
There is merit to the tenant’s argument that if the landlord had done what the landlord ought to have, in terms of recoating the deck and giving a copy of the entry report to the tenant, the tenant might not have done the work that led to the damage.
However, whether or not the deck required or ought to have required water blasting, it was not the act of water blasting the deck that caused the damage, but the way in which it was done, and the tenant is responsible for that.
In terms of the pre-existing damage, the repair of the deck will repair damage that was there at the start of the tenancy and which the tenant is not responsible for fixing. That damage is shown in the photos and consists of a significant area of the deck which appears to require treatment, likely including sanding and coating.
There is no separate assessment quote for that work but an allowance is made in the compensation awarded for my estimate of the costs attributable to it.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4986929 — Property damage at 239A Kennedy Road, Onekawa, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4986929 — Property damage at 239A Kennedy Road, Onekawa, Napier 4110

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