What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5045348 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 5045348?

Rent Arrears: $102.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5045348?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5045348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11619519-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5045348 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 5045348?

Rent Arrears: $102.86 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5045348?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5045348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11619519-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5045348 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5045348 — net $102.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$102.86	Rent arrears
Net award	$102.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$102.86

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Street Smart Property Management Limited as agent for Paul Young: $102.86 [The tenant/s]: $2,777.14
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the kitchen cabinetry is dismissed.

Reasons

This hearing was conducted via teleconference and was attended by Mr Frank Liu, on behalf of the landlord, and [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] on behalf of the tenants. The hearing was adjourned part-heard, since the evidence was incomplete, and was concluded on the papers. The landlord agreed to provide additional evidence after the hearing, and the tenants were given the opportunity to comment on it. Background
This tenancy began on 26 May 2023 and came to an end on 27 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties attended mediation on 27 November 2024, following which it was agreed that the rent arrears of $102.86 was payable to the landlord. The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to kitchen cabinetry remained unresolved and was referred to the Tribunal. The landlord sought the insurance excess of $1,000.00.
As noted in the first order following the hearing, the landlord states the cabinets were in good condition at the start of the tenancy. When the tenants moved out, they found the vertical panel near the fridge had expanded. The landlord considers this to be the result of water damage from the tenants’ fridge, due to condensation. Evidence included inspection reports, photographs, and emails.
The tenants do not accept liability for damage to the kitchen cabinets and refer to their own evidence in support, including oral evidence They state they had no issues with their fridge, which was not leaking, and they did not notice any water coming from the fridge. There was a heat pump installed on the wall behind the kitchen cabinet, so potentially, there could be moisture from this unit.
The tenants obtained their own quote for the repair cost, which was around $400.00 to $500.00. They were initially prepared to contribute to the repair costs. However, upon seeing the landlord’s quote, they felt they were being overcharged. They questioned the extent of the work in the landlord’s quotation.
Following the hearing, the landlord provided the invoice for the repair work, evidence to show that the kitchen was installed in 2016, and email correspondence between the owner and the insurer. No insurance assessor’s report was provided.
The tenants provided written submissions in response, noting the reported damage was limited to water damage to the kitchen cabinet in one area, yet the repairs went beyond this. They set out their understanding of residential tenancy law, noting tenants were not liable for accidental damage. They also wanted the rent arrears claim to be excluded. The legal framework
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage, the 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.
Fair wear and tear is damage caused as a result of normal, expected everyday use. This is often the result of a gradual deterioration over time.
Damage is intentional where the damage is done on purpose (the person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose), or where a person allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Careless damage is damage caused by an inadvertent lack of reasonable care.
Accidental damage, where there is no tenant liability, is damage that is greater than fair wear and tear, but could not have been reasonably prevented.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the 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.
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. Kitchen cabinetry damage
Having considered the evidence of both parties, including the photographic, documentary and oral evidence, and noting their submissions, I find the kitchen cabinetry damage is more likely due to fair wear and tear, or damage from ordinary use. This means the landlord has not established its claim and therefore, the tenants will not be liable for the repair costs. My reasons are set out below.
The landlord has provided photographic evidence of the kitchen cabinetry, showing that part of a vertical panel (which defines the space for a fridge) is swollen. It may be noted that the affected area is relatively small, and is limited to the bottom of the vertical panel, up to the height of the kickboard. The affected area is not readily visible on the landlord’s outgoing inspection report, although photographs taken at close range do show the damage.
However, the landlord’s evidence shows the cabinetry repairs were not confined to repairing the fridge vertical panel, and also involved repairs to other parts of the kitchen cabinets. The quotation from [Builder] shows panels were to be removed from around the fridge, dishwasher and oven, and new panels were to be fitted in these areas. There is also photographic evidence showing the same type of damage in other areas of the kitchen cabinetry.
In terms of the insurance information provided by the landlord, the statement in the email dated 15 October 2024, from the insurer to the owner, simply states, “this is accidental tenant damage.” This statement is brief and does not contain reasons. There has been no report from an insurance assessor, or explanation from the insurer. Furthermore, if the damage was considered by the insurer to be accidental, then the tenants will not be liable for it.
The tenants have given oral evidence, which I accept, that they had no issues with a leaking fridge during this tenancy. I found the tenants’ evidence to be credible. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that water from the tenants’ fridge is the likely cause of the damage to the vertical panel.
The kitchen was installed around August 2016, as shown by the invoice from [the kitchen installers]. So, the kitchen was not relatively new as claimed by the landlord. At the end of the tenancy, the kitchen was 8 years old. In that time, fair wear and tear, or damage from ordinary use resulting in a gradual deterioration, can be expected.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the kitchen cabinetry is dismissed. Rent arrears
The parties reached agreement, following mediation, that there were rent arrears of $102.86. This amount is awarded above. The tenants state this issue arose following a misunderstanding, and now request that this be removed from the claim. However, as there is a mediated order recording this agreement, the amount agreed is recorded above. Filing fee and name suppression
There is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee, since the landlord has not been substantially successful.
The tenants are entitled to name suppression, as they have been successful in these proceedings.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5045348 — net $102.86 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$102.86	Rent arrears
Net award	$102.86
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$102.86

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,880.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Street Smart Property Management Limited as agent for Paul Young: $102.86 [The tenant/s]: $2,777.14
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the kitchen cabinetry is dismissed.

Reasons

This hearing was conducted via teleconference and was attended by Mr Frank Liu, on behalf of the landlord, and [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2] on behalf of the tenants. The hearing was adjourned part-heard, since the evidence was incomplete, and was concluded on the papers. The landlord agreed to provide additional evidence after the hearing, and the tenants were given the opportunity to comment on it. Background
This tenancy began on 26 May 2023 and came to an end on 27 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, payment from the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The parties attended mediation on 27 November 2024, following which it was agreed that the rent arrears of $102.86 was payable to the landlord. The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to kitchen cabinetry remained unresolved and was referred to the Tribunal. The landlord sought the insurance excess of $1,000.00.
As noted in the first order following the hearing, the landlord states the cabinets were in good condition at the start of the tenancy. When the tenants moved out, they found the vertical panel near the fridge had expanded. The landlord considers this to be the result of water damage from the tenants’ fridge, due to condensation. Evidence included inspection reports, photographs, and emails.
The tenants do not accept liability for damage to the kitchen cabinets and refer to their own evidence in support, including oral evidence They state they had no issues with their fridge, which was not leaking, and they did not notice any water coming from the fridge. There was a heat pump installed on the wall behind the kitchen cabinet, so potentially, there could be moisture from this unit.
The tenants obtained their own quote for the repair cost, which was around $400.00 to $500.00. They were initially prepared to contribute to the repair costs. However, upon seeing the landlord’s quote, they felt they were being overcharged. They questioned the extent of the work in the landlord’s quotation.
Following the hearing, the landlord provided the invoice for the repair work, evidence to show that the kitchen was installed in 2016, and email correspondence between the owner and the insurer. No insurance assessor’s report was provided.
The tenants provided written submissions in response, noting the reported damage was limited to water damage to the kitchen cabinet in one area, yet the repairs went beyond this. They set out their understanding of residential tenancy law, noting tenants were not liable for accidental damage. They also wanted the rent arrears claim to be excluded. The legal framework
In this jurisdiction, the party making the claim has the onus of proving their claim to the required civil standard of proof, which is on the balance of probabilities. This means they must establish, with evidence, that their claim is “more likely than not.”
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. In general, when awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage, the 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.
Fair wear and tear is damage caused as a result of normal, expected everyday use. This is often the result of a gradual deterioration over time.
Damage is intentional where the damage is done on purpose (the person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose), or where a person allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Careless damage is damage caused by an inadvertent lack of reasonable care.
Accidental damage, where there is no tenant liability, is damage that is greater than fair wear and tear, but could not have been reasonably prevented.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the 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.
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. Kitchen cabinetry damage
Having considered the evidence of both parties, including the photographic, documentary and oral evidence, and noting their submissions, I find the kitchen cabinetry damage is more likely due to fair wear and tear, or damage from ordinary use. This means the landlord has not established its claim and therefore, the tenants will not be liable for the repair costs. My reasons are set out below.
The landlord has provided photographic evidence of the kitchen cabinetry, showing that part of a vertical panel (which defines the space for a fridge) is swollen. It may be noted that the affected area is relatively small, and is limited to the bottom of the vertical panel, up to the height of the kickboard. The affected area is not readily visible on the landlord’s outgoing inspection report, although photographs taken at close range do show the damage.
However, the landlord’s evidence shows the cabinetry repairs were not confined to repairing the fridge vertical panel, and also involved repairs to other parts of the kitchen cabinets. The quotation from [Builder] shows panels were to be removed from around the fridge, dishwasher and oven, and new panels were to be fitted in these areas. There is also photographic evidence showing the same type of damage in other areas of the kitchen cabinetry.
In terms of the insurance information provided by the landlord, the statement in the email dated 15 October 2024, from the insurer to the owner, simply states, “this is accidental tenant damage.” This statement is brief and does not contain reasons. There has been no report from an insurance assessor, or explanation from the insurer. Furthermore, if the damage was considered by the insurer to be accidental, then the tenants will not be liable for it.
The tenants have given oral evidence, which I accept, that they had no issues with a leaking fridge during this tenancy. I found the tenants’ evidence to be credible. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that water from the tenants’ fridge is the likely cause of the damage to the vertical panel.
The kitchen was installed around August 2016, as shown by the invoice from [the kitchen installers]. So, the kitchen was not relatively new as claimed by the landlord. At the end of the tenancy, the kitchen was 8 years old. In that time, fair wear and tear, or damage from ordinary use resulting in a gradual deterioration, can be expected.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the kitchen cabinetry is dismissed. Rent arrears
The parties reached agreement, following mediation, that there were rent arrears of $102.86. This amount is awarded above. The tenants state this issue arose following a misunderstanding, and now request that this be removed from the claim. However, as there is a mediated order recording this agreement, the amount agreed is recorded above. Filing fee and name suppression
There is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee, since the landlord has not been substantially successful.
The tenants are entitled to name suppression, as they have been successful in these proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5045348 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5045348 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions