What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5152325 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 5152325?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door: $593.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5152325?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5152325?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11836875-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5152325 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 5152325?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door: $593.98 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5152325?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5152325?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11836875-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5152325 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5152325 — net $1,620.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Fire door insurance excess	$1,000.00	Repairs: Fire door insurance excess
Repairs: Bathroom door	$593.98	Repairs: Bathroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,620.98
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,620.98

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Arizona Onga huia louise Herewini to pay [The landlord/s] $1,620.98 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,620.98 from the bond of $1,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond of $79.02 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. A telephone call was made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The call went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied the notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice was given.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord sought compensation for an administration fee charged to the body corporate of the premises, as a result of a call out resulting from excessive noise by the tenant. No other supporting evidence was available from the landlord as to precisely what had occurred and what, if any, involvement the tenant may have had with the noise. In those circumstances, I consider that the landlord has not proven the claim for the administration fee to the required standard and the claim is dismissed.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: A fire door within the building was damaged by a friend of the tenant, who had been on the premises with the consent of the tenant. The friend was in the basement of the building and tried to force their way through the fire door causing substantial damage. An invoice for $5,002.50 and photos of the damage were provided by the landlord. A tenant remains responsible for damage caused by anybody on the premises with the consent or approval of the tenant. The landlord seeks compensation of $1,000.00 being the excess on the body corporate’s insurance policy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The bathroom door in the premises had been damaged by the tenant as a result of the tenant’s son locking himself in the bathroom. The tenant has damaged the bathroom door in an attempt to release her son. Photos of the damage were provided, as well as an invoice for repairs of $593.98. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and then it has disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5152325 — net $1,620.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Fire door insurance excess	$1,000.00	Repairs: Fire door insurance excess
Repairs: Bathroom door	$593.98	Repairs: Bathroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,620.98
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,620.98

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Arizona Onga huia louise Herewini to pay [The landlord/s] $1,620.98 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $1,620.98 from the bond of $1,700.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond of $79.02 is to remain at the Bond Centre.

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. A telephone call was made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The call went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied the notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice was given.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord sought compensation for an administration fee charged to the body corporate of the premises, as a result of a call out resulting from excessive noise by the tenant. No other supporting evidence was available from the landlord as to precisely what had occurred and what, if any, involvement the tenant may have had with the noise. In those circumstances, I consider that the landlord has not proven the claim for the administration fee to the required standard and the claim is dismissed.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: A fire door within the building was damaged by a friend of the tenant, who had been on the premises with the consent of the tenant. The friend was in the basement of the building and tried to force their way through the fire door causing substantial damage. An invoice for $5,002.50 and photos of the damage were provided by the landlord. A tenant remains responsible for damage caused by anybody on the premises with the consent or approval of the tenant. The landlord seeks compensation of $1,000.00 being the excess on the body corporate’s insurance policy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The bathroom door in the premises had been damaged by the tenant as a result of the tenant’s son locking himself in the bathroom. The tenant has damaged the bathroom door in an attempt to release her son. Photos of the damage were provided, as well as an invoice for repairs of $593.98. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and then it has disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5152325 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5152325 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions