What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5028229?

The tribunal order states: Joel Blyth, Jonathan Churton, Reuben Andrews and Matthew Corfiatis to pay

How much money was awarded in case 5028229?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Floor: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5028229?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5028229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11300991-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5028229?

The tribunal order states: Joel Blyth, Jonathan Churton, Reuben Andrews and Matthew Corfiatis to pay

How much money was awarded in case 5028229?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Floor: $1,250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5028229?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5028229?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11300991-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Dormar Place, Churton Park, Wellington 6037 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5028229 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5028229 — net $1,277.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen floor	$1,250.00	Repairs: Kitchen floor
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,277.00
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,277.00

Joel Blyth, Jonathan Churton, Reuben Andrews and Matthew Corfiatis to pay Oakheart Properties Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management As Agent For Trang Cao & N Nguyen $1,277.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 (6402732-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Oakheart Properties Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management As Agent For Trang Cao & N Nguyen: $1,277.00 Joel Blyth, Jonathan Churton, Reuben Andrews and Matthew Corfiatis: $2,523.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation via the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.

Section 40(1)(d) RTA requires the tenants notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs.

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. 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.

The kitchen floor was water damaged by a small flooding event that occurred overnight. It occurred during the final cleaning of the premises after the tenants had already moved out. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. It was clearly unintentional, but the tenants failed to act in a timely or appropriate manner after the cause, a leaking valve, was first identified by them. The subsequent flooding should have been reasonably foreseeable and mitigated against better, as well as being promptly notified to the landlord. This conclusion was foreshadowed and explained at the hearing.

The tenancy agreement states there was no insurance but, fortunately, there was some in place at the end of the tenancy. While this, and any excess was not notified to the tenants, I accept the excess of $1250.00 as a cap on their liability. This is a significant discount to the alternative potential liability of up to four weeks rent. The repair cost over $15,000.

The amount ordered is proved. Change of tenant charge

A fifth tenant was released several months before the end of the tenancy. The landlord now sought an order for $69.00, being the administrative cost incurred for this exercise.

The tenants produced an email from the property manager at the time. It indicated that administrative cost was accepted by the exiting tenant as her liability, and the remaining tenants approval for the release was all that was sought from them.

I do not find the release cost is something that sits with the remaining tenants and the claim is dismissed. Filing fee

Because Oakheart Properties Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management As Agent For Trang Cao & N Nguyen has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5028229 — net $1,277.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Kitchen floor	$1,250.00	Repairs: Kitchen floor
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,277.00
Bond	$3,800.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,277.00

Order

Joel Blyth, Jonathan Churton, Reuben Andrews and Matthew Corfiatis to pay Oakheart Properties Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management As Agent For Trang Cao & N Nguyen $1,277.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,800.00 (6402732-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Oakheart Properties Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management As Agent For Trang Cao & N Nguyen: $1,277.00 Joel Blyth, Jonathan Churton, Reuben Andrews and Matthew Corfiatis: $2,523.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation via the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

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.
Section 40(1)(d) RTA requires the tenants notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs.
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. 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.
The kitchen floor was water damaged by a small flooding event that occurred overnight. It occurred during the final cleaning of the premises after the tenants had already moved out. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. It was clearly unintentional, but the tenants failed to act in a timely or appropriate manner after the cause, a leaking valve, was first identified by them. The subsequent flooding should have been reasonably foreseeable and mitigated against better, as well as being promptly notified to the landlord. This conclusion was foreshadowed and explained at the hearing.
The tenancy agreement states there was no insurance but, fortunately, there was some in place at the end of the tenancy. While this, and any excess was not notified to the tenants, I accept the excess of $1250.00 as a cap on their liability. This is a significant discount to the alternative potential liability of up to four weeks rent. The repair cost over $15,000.
The amount ordered is proved. Change of tenant charge
A fifth tenant was released several months before the end of the tenancy. The landlord now sought an order for $69.00, being the administrative cost incurred for this exercise.
The tenants produced an email from the property manager at the time. It indicated that administrative cost was accepted by the exiting tenant as her liability, and the remaining tenants approval for the release was all that was sought from them.
I do not find the release cost is something that sits with the remaining tenants and the claim is dismissed. Filing fee
Because Oakheart Properties Limited T/A Quinovic Property Management As Agent For Trang Cao & N Nguyen has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5028229 — Property damage at 4 Dormar Place, Churton Park, Wellington 6037

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5028229 — Property damage at 4 Dormar Place, Churton Park, Wellington 6037

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions