What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5062129?

The tribunal order states: Felipe Quinteros and Courtney McKay must pay Buy West Property

How much money was awarded in case 5062129?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $616.07 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5062129?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5062129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11458385-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5062129?

The tribunal order states: Felipe Quinteros and Courtney McKay must pay Buy West Property

How much money was awarded in case 5062129?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $616.07 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5062129?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5062129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11458385-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 305, 8 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland 1010, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5062129 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5062129 — net $483.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs: Insurance excess	$500.00	Window repairs: Insurance excess
Insurance excess on carpet claim	$1,500.00	Insurance excess on carpet claim
Water rates	$616.07	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$483.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$483.07

Order

Felipe Quinteros and Courtney McKay must pay Buy West Property Management Limited T/A Ray White As Agent For Xinyue Han $483.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (6196013-002) to Buy West Property Management Limited T/A Ray White As Agent For Xinyue Han immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 29 January 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 20 September 2022 and ended on 29 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The landlord seeks compensation for water rates of $616.07 and provided copies of the invoices in support. The tenant did not provide evidence to the contrary and the claim is proven.

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.
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 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 landlord is insured. The policy of insurance carries an excess of $500.00 on each and every claim.
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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord says that an internal glass wall was damaged by the tenant as the tenants were moving out of the premises. The landlord seeks $500.00 for the repair, this being the insurance on the claim. The actual cost of repair exceeded $500.00. The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The claim is proven.
The landlord said that during the tenancy, the carpet was stained in a number of areas including the lounge, living room and bedroom. The cost to replace the carpet was shown in an invoice at $3,162.00. The carpet was approximately six years old at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has made three separate claims under his insurance policy for the separate areas of damage. The claims have been accepted by his insurer and accordingly the landlord’s claim against the tenant is limited to $1,500.00, being the three applicable excesses.
The tenant said that he offered to carry out the work himself. There is no obligation on a landlord at allow the tenant to complete repair work. The landlord evidence shows that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant evidence was not such that liability was disproved. The claim is proven.
As Buy West Property Management Limited T/A Ray White As Agent For Xinyue Han has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5062129 — net $483.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs: Insurance excess	$500.00	Window repairs: Insurance excess
Insurance excess on carpet claim	$1,500.00	Insurance excess on carpet claim
Water rates	$616.07	Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$483.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$483.07

Order

Felipe Quinteros and Courtney McKay must pay Buy West Property Management Limited T/A Ray White As Agent For Xinyue Han $483.07 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (6196013-002) to Buy West Property Management Limited T/A Ray White As Agent For Xinyue Han immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 29 January 2025.
The tenancy commenced on 20 September 2022 and ended on 29 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The landlord seeks compensation for water rates of $616.07 and provided copies of the invoices in support. The tenant did not provide evidence to the contrary and the claim is proven.

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.
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 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 landlord is insured. The policy of insurance carries an excess of $500.00 on each and every claim.
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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The landlord says that an internal glass wall was damaged by the tenant as the tenants were moving out of the premises. The landlord seeks $500.00 for the repair, this being the insurance on the claim. The actual cost of repair exceeded $500.00. The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The claim is proven.
The landlord said that during the tenancy, the carpet was stained in a number of areas including the lounge, living room and bedroom. The cost to replace the carpet was shown in an invoice at $3,162.00. The carpet was approximately six years old at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has made three separate claims under his insurance policy for the separate areas of damage. The claims have been accepted by his insurer and accordingly the landlord’s claim against the tenant is limited to $1,500.00, being the three applicable excesses.
The tenant said that he offered to carry out the work himself. There is no obligation on a landlord at allow the tenant to complete repair work. The landlord evidence shows that the damage occurred during the course of the tenancy and was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant evidence was not such that liability was disproved. The claim is proven.
As Buy West Property Management Limited T/A Ray White As Agent For Xinyue Han has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5062129 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 305, 8 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland 1010,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5062129 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 305, 8 Whitaker Place, Grafton, Auckland 1010,

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