What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5114970?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5114970?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5114970?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5114970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11577947-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5114970?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5114970?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5114970?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5114970?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11577947-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 11, 44 Ventnor Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5114970 — Property damage

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $529.00 (6514851-001) to Nicholas Webb immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a fridge door during the tenancy. The tenant denies causing the damage.
Before I consider the specific claim, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is a landlord application, that means that it is for the landlord to establish their respective claim on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular 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.

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.
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 landlord claims that the tenant caused a number of dents on the front of the fridge door. They say that this occurred during the tenancy and provided limited photographic evidence and email correspondence in support of this claim. The tenant is adamant that the dents in the door of the fridge were preexisting and has refused to pay for damage he says he did not cause. The tenant also says that the entry photographs supplied by the landlord are inconsistent with the state of the premises when he moved in.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. I find that the claim should fail for the following reasons.
The landlord has only provided an email quote to have the fridge door repaired. The tenancy ended in October 2024 and as at todays’ date, some five months later, the repairs have still not taken place. In order for an applicant to succeed with compensation for damage they must show actual loss. At the very least I would have expected an expense claim in the form of a paid invoice. This has not happened.
I am also not satisfied with the photographic evidence provided by the landlord in support of the claim. The photographic evidence is far from conclusive that there is damage and, if there is damage that this occurred during the tenancy. The landlord has only provided a limited number of photographs of the fridge before and after the tenancy. From the limited evidence provided I am far from convinced that the claim should be accepted.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the alleged damage.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application must be dismissed.
Because the landlord has been unsuccessful in their application I do not reimburse the filing fee.
I also order that the bond is returned to the tenant.

Order

The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $529.00 (6514851-001) to Nicholas Webb immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a fridge door during the tenancy. The tenant denies causing the damage.
Before I consider the specific claim, I begin by noting that as with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. In this case, as it is a landlord application, that means that it is for the landlord to establish their respective claim on “the balance of probabilities”. That means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular 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.

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.
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 landlord claims that the tenant caused a number of dents on the front of the fridge door. They say that this occurred during the tenancy and provided limited photographic evidence and email correspondence in support of this claim. The tenant is adamant that the dents in the door of the fridge were preexisting and has refused to pay for damage he says he did not cause. The tenant also says that the entry photographs supplied by the landlord are inconsistent with the state of the premises when he moved in.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. I find that the claim should fail for the following reasons.
The landlord has only provided an email quote to have the fridge door repaired. The tenancy ended in October 2024 and as at todays’ date, some five months later, the repairs have still not taken place. In order for an applicant to succeed with compensation for damage they must show actual loss. At the very least I would have expected an expense claim in the form of a paid invoice. This has not happened.
I am also not satisfied with the photographic evidence provided by the landlord in support of the claim. The photographic evidence is far from conclusive that there is damage and, if there is damage that this occurred during the tenancy. The landlord has only provided a limited number of photographs of the fridge before and after the tenancy. From the limited evidence provided I am far from convinced that the claim should be accepted.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the tenant is responsible for the alleged damage.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application must be dismissed.
Because the landlord has been unsuccessful in their application I do not reimburse the filing fee.
I also order that the bond is returned to the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5114970 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 11, 44 Ventnor Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5114970 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 11, 44 Ventnor Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

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

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