What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146871 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 5146871?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Dining Chairs: $966.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146871?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11771666-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5146871 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 5146871?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Dining Chairs: $966.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5146871?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5146871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11771666-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5146871 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146871 — net $1,543.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Benchtop – insurance excess	$550.00	Repairs: Benchtop – insurance excess
Repairs: Dining chairs	$966.00	Repairs: Dining chairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,543.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,543.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
Laura Batchelor to pay [The landlord/s] $1,543.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,543.00 Laura Batchelor: $1,457.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference. The landlord was represented by [The landlord/s representative]. The tenant attended.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage, refund of 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.
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.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Damage to kitchen benchtop - $550.00 insurance excess -Damage to six dining chairs - $1932.00 to recover chairs
The tenant does not dispute the claim in respect of the kitchen benchtop and the insurance excess reimbursement is ordered accordingly.
The tenant disputes the claim in respect of the dining chairs.
The landlord provided the following evidence in support of the claim: (a)Entry photographs of the dining chairs dated stamped 16 January 2024 which show the chairs to be in good condition. (b)Exit photographs of the dining chairs showing close up photographs of scratch marks on all chairs. (c)A copy of a landlord inventory list of chattels as at January 2024 which includes record of the dining table and 6 chairs and states “Near new dining suite with 6 leather-like seats Near new – very good condition”. (d)A copy of a quote from [Upholster] dated 23 January 2025 which quotes the sum of $1932.00 to recover the six chairs. (e)A copy of an email from [Upholster] dated 24 January 2025 which states “In my opinion the scratches/damaged are consistent with being caused by a clawed animal — most likely a cat. The sharp scratches have penetrated and in areas removed, the top layer of the vinyl leaving the base weave of the vinyl visible. This is not typical wear and tear. I would call it negligence rather than a deliberate act as I would hope it is just an accident.” (f)Evidence that there was agreement to the tenant having a cat at the premises on the understanding it slept in the garage. (g)The landlord also had a witness give evidence. A letting agent at [Agency] who had been involved in letting the premises and in the entry inspection and exit inspection. The letting agent confirmed that [Agency] took the photographs that the landlord attached. The letting agent also stated that she observed that the chairs were in good condition when the tenant entered the premises and stated that there was “definitely a change to the condition of the chairs”. She stated that she observed scratch marks on the surface of the chairs. (h)The owner applied for insurance for the repairs but this was declined due to the damage being considered gradual damage caused by multiple events.
The tenant disputed the claim for the following reasons: (a)The tenant disputed the entry photographs provided by the landlord on the basis that she had not seen these previous to this application and did not agree with them. (b)The tenant also disputed the inventory list of chattels which recorded the condition of the chattels as she had not signed this. (c)The tenant referred to the joint written entry inspection report which was forwarded to the Tribunal by the letting agent. She stated that although this report recorded the condition both good and bad of many items at the premises when it came to the dining table and chairs they were recorded as being present but there was no mention of their condition. (d)The tenant stated that she had covered the chairs as she did not like the black colour. She stated that any damage to the chairs was the result of wear and tear.
Having carefully considered the evidence I find that the landlord has proved that careless damage occurred to the dining chairs during the tenancy for the following reasons: (a)I accept the evidence of the letting agent and the date stamped photographs confirm the entry condition of the chairs. The lack of comment in the written entry inspection could not be explained by the letting agent but she stated that where there is existing damage in the premises this has been noted. (b) The tenant did not provide any alternative photograph evidence of the chairs at the beginning of the tenancy. (c)Although I accept that the entry photographs are wider in angle and the exit photographs are close up they record an obvious change in the condition of the chairs. The scratch marks are extensive and very evident on all chairs. The evidence from the upholsterer states that the marks are consistent with pet scratch marks. I find that the extent of the marks is beyond fair wear and tear. (d)I find that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the chairs were damaged during the tenancy and the damage was beyond fair wear and tear. Therefore, the tenant is liable to pay compensation for the damage.
In calculating compensation I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The landlord advised that the chairs are 10 years old and is seeking the cost of new covers for all six chairs. In many cases 10 year old furniture would be considered fully depreciated but in this case I accept that this was quality furniture in good condition. I have also taken into account that the amount claimed is recorded as a quote. I must take a conservative approach when provided with only one quote. Having considered these factors I find that it is appropriate to order the tenant to pay half of the quoted cost of repair in the sum of $966.00.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I order reimbursement of the filing fee and suppress the landlord details in the order as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5146871 — net $1,543.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Benchtop – insurance excess	$550.00	Repairs: Benchtop – insurance excess
Repairs: Dining chairs	$966.00	Repairs: Dining chairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,543.00
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,543.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
Laura Batchelor to pay [The landlord/s] $1,543.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,543.00 Laura Batchelor: $1,457.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference. The landlord was represented by [The landlord/s representative]. The tenant attended.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage, refund of 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.
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.
The landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: -Damage to kitchen benchtop - $550.00 insurance excess -Damage to six dining chairs - $1932.00 to recover chairs
The tenant does not dispute the claim in respect of the kitchen benchtop and the insurance excess reimbursement is ordered accordingly.
The tenant disputes the claim in respect of the dining chairs.
The landlord provided the following evidence in support of the claim: (a)Entry photographs of the dining chairs dated stamped 16 January 2024 which show the chairs to be in good condition. (b)Exit photographs of the dining chairs showing close up photographs of scratch marks on all chairs. (c)A copy of a landlord inventory list of chattels as at January 2024 which includes record of the dining table and 6 chairs and states “Near new dining suite with 6 leather-like seats Near new – very good condition”. (d)A copy of a quote from [Upholster] dated 23 January 2025 which quotes the sum of $1932.00 to recover the six chairs. (e)A copy of an email from [Upholster] dated 24 January 2025 which states “In my opinion the scratches/damaged are consistent with being caused by a clawed animal — most likely a cat. The sharp scratches have penetrated and in areas removed, the top layer of the vinyl leaving the base weave of the vinyl visible. This is not typical wear and tear. I would call it negligence rather than a deliberate act as I would hope it is just an accident.” (f)Evidence that there was agreement to the tenant having a cat at the premises on the understanding it slept in the garage. (g)The landlord also had a witness give evidence. A letting agent at [Agency] who had been involved in letting the premises and in the entry inspection and exit inspection. The letting agent confirmed that [Agency] took the photographs that the landlord attached. The letting agent also stated that she observed that the chairs were in good condition when the tenant entered the premises and stated that there was “definitely a change to the condition of the chairs”. She stated that she observed scratch marks on the surface of the chairs. (h)The owner applied for insurance for the repairs but this was declined due to the damage being considered gradual damage caused by multiple events.
The tenant disputed the claim for the following reasons: (a)The tenant disputed the entry photographs provided by the landlord on the basis that she had not seen these previous to this application and did not agree with them. (b)The tenant also disputed the inventory list of chattels which recorded the condition of the chattels as she had not signed this. (c)The tenant referred to the joint written entry inspection report which was forwarded to the Tribunal by the letting agent. She stated that although this report recorded the condition both good and bad of many items at the premises when it came to the dining table and chairs they were recorded as being present but there was no mention of their condition. (d)The tenant stated that she had covered the chairs as she did not like the black colour. She stated that any damage to the chairs was the result of wear and tear.
Having carefully considered the evidence I find that the landlord has proved that careless damage occurred to the dining chairs during the tenancy for the following reasons: (a)I accept the evidence of the letting agent and the date stamped photographs confirm the entry condition of the chairs. The lack of comment in the written entry inspection could not be explained by the letting agent but she stated that where there is existing damage in the premises this has been noted. (b) The tenant did not provide any alternative photograph evidence of the chairs at the beginning of the tenancy. (c)Although I accept that the entry photographs are wider in angle and the exit photographs are close up they record an obvious change in the condition of the chairs. The scratch marks are extensive and very evident on all chairs. The evidence from the upholsterer states that the marks are consistent with pet scratch marks. I find that the extent of the marks is beyond fair wear and tear. (d)I find that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the chairs were damaged during the tenancy and the damage was beyond fair wear and tear. Therefore, the tenant is liable to pay compensation for the damage.
In calculating compensation I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The landlord advised that the chairs are 10 years old and is seeking the cost of new covers for all six chairs. In many cases 10 year old furniture would be considered fully depreciated but in this case I accept that this was quality furniture in good condition. I have also taken into account that the amount claimed is recorded as a quote. I must take a conservative approach when provided with only one quote. Having considered these factors I find that it is appropriate to order the tenant to pay half of the quoted cost of repair in the sum of $966.00.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I order reimbursement of the filing fee and suppress the landlord details in the order as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146871 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5146871 — Property damage

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

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

Frequently asked questions