What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5050502 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 5050502?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5050502?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5050502?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11650834-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5050502 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 5050502?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5050502?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Property damage, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5050502?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11650834-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5050502 — Mould & damp

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s and Landlord’s name and identifying details. For the

Reasons

stated below that is liable to pay $19,834.43. The Bond-centre is to pay the bond of ( ) immediately to . is to pay $19,366.93, immediately. Reasons:

Both parties attended the hearing.
The background to this matter is that: a. occupied the premises from 2021, the tenancy is in community housing; b. there were a number of unfortunate instances over the years which to his credit has accepted he was largely responsible for; c. applied for termination and compensation for damage to the property; d. on 26 November 2024, I terminated the tenancy; e. on re-entry discovered further damage and has developed its claim accordingly.
The matter before me is the damage the landlord says the tenant is liable for.
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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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, which is $100,000 in the present case, or four weeks market rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. As the tenant pays an income-related rent within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Public and Community Housing Management Act 1992, the market rent is $238.10.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four week’s 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.
An issue with a number a of items referred to below is that due to abusive behaviour towards tradespeople, from late 2023 it was necessary for a tenancy manager to be present when tradespeople were attending the flat. When a tenancy manager was not available, two tradespeople would attend, doubling the labour rate. I accept that the behaviours described were such that this was a necessary approach. Some of the damaged items are domestic necessities, such as the stove, or are essential to the security and weathertightness of the tenancy, such as external doors and windows. Where damage to these items raises issues of urgency to make the premises secure and tenantable, these additional costs are reasonable.
The following table shows damage not disputed by : DamageNotesAward Front door wired glass panel smashed Intentional damage$161 (labour only sought) Stove – damaged in fireCareless damage. Stove new at start of tenancy. $952.40 ($2,004.62 claimed but limited to 4 week’s rent) Oven door – smashedIntentional damage. Replaced oven door. $813.19 Kitchen wall holesIntentional damage $675.45 Kitchen cabinets holesIntentional damage$454.14 Living room door hole – replacement required Intentional damage$1,148.85 2 x replacement stove elements Chopping board melted into elements – careless damage $417.03 Missing stove knobIntentional damage$291.88 Broken front door – replaced due to multiple instances Intentional damage$1,788.22 Replacement light fixture, heater, and disconnected fan unit Intentional damage$793.50 Total$7,334.66
The damage challenged by is: a. In January 2022 the shower sliding door came off the rails and was unable to put it back on. seeks $97.75 which with the cost of having a tradesmen visit, place the door back on its tracks, and adjust the guide wheels. says the issue was wear and tear. He says that the door came off when the door runners would go past the endpoint. He said he fixed it himself on other occasions. says that force is required to push the door off its rail and this common model of shower enclosure was not usually a problem. Considering the evidence, I find this was not careless or intentional damage. This was a relatively minor wear and tear issue which was easily fixed. I decline to award the compensation sought. b. In March 2022, says the front door handle turned but the door would not open, and he was effectively locked in. He removed the screws holding the handle to the door to enable him to get out. Tradesmen assessed the issue, and a new longer spindle was installed to prevent the issue from recurring. seeks $468.65. The cost was to replace spindle. It does not appear that removing the door handle caused any damage. Therefore, this is a maintenance issue. I decline to award the compensation sought. c. In July 2023, three windows in the lounge, and the wired glass panel in the front door were smashed. It appears that furniture was thrown through the main lounge window. says the damage occurred when a violent dispute occurred involving the tenant and neighbouring tenants who forced their way into his flat and assaulted him. had tradespeople attend and board up the windows. Later scaffolding was erected to allow access and the windows were replaced. In total seeks $3,660.20 compensation. At the adjournment had advised that he was going to obtain the Police report regarding the incident, but did not do so. I am presented with a conflict of evidence. says the damage was caused by neighbours unlawfully entering the flat to assault him, says there is no evidence of this. The onus is on a landlord to prove the damage occurred intentionally, or carelessly, then the onus shifts to the tenant to prove that neither they nor those lawfully on the premises caused the damage. I note that the statements provided by neighbouring tenants, including an elderly neighbour do not refer to the violent dispute but do refer to the tenant throwing furniture through windows, and that the numerous recorded references to incidents during the tenancy do not refer to the violent dispute. I also note that the damage to the door glass and lounge windows is consistent with other damage caused by . On balance I find that has not shown that the damage was caused by others unlawfully on the premises, therefore, he is liable for the costs to repair the damage . I award $3,660.20. d. In April 2024, the front door wired glass panel was smashed. accepts that he caused the damage, however, he says the labour charged is excessive. seeks $869.19. The invoice records that there was a visit by the glazier to clean up the glass and board over the door, several more attendances where the work could not be done as would not answer the door or his phone, and then finally the visit where the repair was carried out. When this work was carried out the policy of having two people attend any work done due to behaviour had been put in place. disputes that the attendances occurred as recorded, however I do not accept that a tradesmen would record an attendance when it did not occur. cost to repair this damage were increased by not answering the door or his phone after a visit had been arranged. I award $869.19. e. In or around June or July 2024, smashed a window in the lounge. seeks $2,007.67 which includes scaffolding. accepts that he smashed the window but challenges the labour which he says is excessive. I note that the labour component of 4 hours is roughly consistent with the 10 hours for the three windows repaired after the 2023 incident. The bulk of the cost was for scaffolding, which was necessary. I award $2,007.67 f. claims $1,336.40 for a smashed toilet pan. says there was defective lino in the bathroom which needed to be re-laid. work replacing the lino stopped as it was discovered that the lino backing contained asbestos. At this point became frustrated and smashed the toilet pan then removed it. says there was a complaint that the existing toilet pan was leaking, and the issue of the lino was raised at the same time. The lino was secured, which I take to mean sealed over, therefore stopping the risk of the asbestos backing becoming airborne. says at this point smashed the toilet pan, and in doing so tore the lino, forcing its replacement. is claiming only the cost of the new toilet pan and the labour for its installation. I note that the damage was intentional, and the plumbing fittings which were renewed when the pan was replaced have been removed from the compensation sought. While I accept that may have had frustrations with the process of repairing or replacing the lino, that does not justify the intentional damage to the toilet pan. I award $1,336.40. g. When re-entered the flat in December 2024, it was discovered that the oven door had been removed. A replacement door was not able to be found and so the entire stove was replaced at a cost of $2,182.12. accepts that he caused the damage to the stove door but challenges the cost. I note that the entire stove was replaced in August 2022, and the door had been replaced in May 2023. It is unclear why replacement parts for a relatively new appliance were not still available in December 2024 as had been the case in May 2023. I note the replacement cost in May 2023 was $813 and award $900 based on this figure plus a fair and reasonable allowance for inflation. h. On re-entry a large amount of damage to internal doors window frames, cupboard doors, jib linings, and architraves was discovered, along with missing window hardware, a missing heated towel rail, and missing cupboard and wardrobe doors. paid $13,014.99 to repair the damage and seeks $4,539.50 for the damage that it says the tenant is liable for. accepts that he recklessly or intentionally caused this damage. I note that the photos and descriptions showed is more than wear and tear and it appears that each item of damage occurred as a separate incident. The four-week rental limit of $952.40 would apply to each instance of damage, the greatest of which, the replacement of wardrobe and cupboard doors, sits below this limit. says no inspections were carried out until 2024 and suggests that the damage could have been mitigated had this occurred. says that annual inspection ceased due to covid from 2020, and that the transition from meant inspections did not restart until 2024. Considering the nature and extent of the damage, the numerous attendances and notices served, and the numerous other instances of damage intentionally caused by , I do not believe that more frequent inspections would have slowed or prevented the damage occurring. I award $4,539.50.
The following table calculates the contested compensation: DamageAward Lounge windows and front door (July 2023)$3,660.20 Door glass (April 2024)$869.19 Lounge window (July 2024)$2,007.67 Smashed toilet pan$1,336.40 Smashed oven door$900 Painting and carpentry$4539.50 Total$13,312.96
Following the hearing emailed the Tribunal asking for some clemency around the damages. I note his situation and have some sympathy for him, however, have been fair in its approach, and is within its rights to seek compensation. I must apply the law in an even-handed manner. Therefore, I find that is to pay $19,834.43.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5050502 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5050502 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions