What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5176475 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, suppression of both Tenant and Landlord names and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5176475?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: failure to maintain, l…: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $239.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $0.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176475?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176475?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11912042-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5176475 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, suppression of both Tenant and Landlord names and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5176475?

Cleaning: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Compensation: failure to maintain, l…: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $239.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $0.94 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5176475?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5176475?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11912042-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5176475 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5176475 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5176475 — net $540.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$0.94		Water rates
Bathroom vanity (insurance excess	$500.00		Bathroom vanity (insurance excess
Dining carpet (insurance excess	$500.00		Dining carpet (insurance excess
Bedroom 2 carpet (insurance excess	$500.00		Bedroom 2 carpet (insurance excess
Wall repair bedroom 3	$239.20		Wall repair bedroom 3
Garage ceiling (insurance excess	$500.00		Garage ceiling (insurance excess
Cleaning	$100.00		Cleaning
Compensation: failure to maintain, loss of amenity		$1,800.00	failure to maintain, loss of amenity
Total award	$2,340.14	$1,800.00
Net award	$540.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$540.14

Claims and awards for application 5176475 — net $540.14 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $0.94
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Bathroom vanity (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Bathroom vanity (insurance excess

Dining carpet (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Dining carpet (insurance excess

Bedroom 2 carpet (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Bedroom 2 carpet (insurance excess

Wall repair bedroom 3

Amount: $239.20
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Wall repair bedroom 3

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Property damage Water Rates

Order

By consent, suppression of both Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $540.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation of $2,340.14 following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for a refund of the bond, and compensation of $2,780.00 for failure to maintain, breach of quiet enjoyment, loss of amenity and inconvenience.

How much is owed for water rates?

The last water bill was paid $0.94 short therefore I make an order for this amount.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants do not dispute they agreed that a cleaner could finish off the cleaning for them at the end of the tenancy, and they would pay for it.
I award $100.00 for cleaning as agreed.

Are the tenants 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.
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: burn mark on vanity, cat urine on carpet in dining area, black stains on carpet in bedroom 2, damage to wall in bedroom 3, and damage to the garage ceiling.
The tenants say the burn mark was caused by a cat knocking over an incense stick, they do not dispute their cat urinated in the corner but say this was due to the sewerage problem, the black stains came off the bed frame caused by mould, they sprayed the garage ceiling to remove mould, and they believe the amount claimed to repair the wall in bedroom 3 is too much.
I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage which I am satisfied falls within the careless category. The tenants did not provide any evidence that the landlord is to blame for mouldy conditions at the premises, nor is there any evidence of sewage reaching the lounge/dining area.
The amounts ordered are proved and commensurate with the damage caused. Tenants’ claim for compensation
[The tenant/s]
The landlord says they responded to the tenant’s calls, they sent out a plumber twice, the carpet was cleaned and dried, and they liaised with the local Council when the plumber identified a blockage. The landlord says they were monitoring the problem, and the tenant did not notify them that they were told not to use the toilets and shower.
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenants are also entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption (s.38 RTA). I find that the tenants did suffer a lack of amenity and inconvenience due to the protracted blockage (around 8 weeks) and sewage overflow, which led to a breach of their quiet enjoyment. I also note that the landlord did not mitigate any potential losses as they failed to visit the premises during this period and assess the tenant’s living conditions for themselves.
Given the breaches, I find the tenants are entitled to an award of general compensation. This is effectively a statutory entitlement to compensation that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to award (Mills & Murray v Auckland Property Management Solutions Ltd t/a Ray White TT 4085842, 14 August 2017). This can also be regarded as an award for general damages for stress and inconvenience pursuant to the common law (Reis & Reis v Rayner [2019] NZTT Tauranga 4160626, 4160602).
I award $1,800.00 to the tenants which is calculated as around one-third of rent paid over the 8 week period, as fair, reasonable and proportionate compensation. Filing fee
I decline to make any award for the respective filing fees. Name Suppression
Both parties have agreed to name suppression for each other.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5176475 — net $540.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Water rates	$0.94		Water rates
Bathroom vanity (insurance excess	$500.00		Bathroom vanity (insurance excess
Dining carpet (insurance excess	$500.00		Dining carpet (insurance excess
Bedroom 2 carpet (insurance excess	$500.00		Bedroom 2 carpet (insurance excess
Wall repair bedroom 3	$239.20		Wall repair bedroom 3
Garage ceiling (insurance excess	$500.00		Garage ceiling (insurance excess
Cleaning	$100.00		Cleaning
Compensation: failure to maintain, loss of amenity		$1,800.00	failure to maintain, loss of amenity
Total award	$2,340.14	$1,800.00
Net award	$540.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$540.14

Claims and awards for application 5176475 — net $540.14 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $0.94
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Bathroom vanity (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Bathroom vanity (insurance excess

Dining carpet (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Dining carpet (insurance excess

Bedroom 2 carpet (insurance excess

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Bedroom 2 carpet (insurance excess

Wall repair bedroom 3

Amount: $239.20
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Wall repair bedroom 3

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Compensation Property damage Water Rates

Order

By consent, suppression of both Tenant and Landlord names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $540.14 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.
The landlord has applied for compensation of $2,340.14 following the end of the tenancy.
The tenants have applied for a refund of the bond, and compensation of $2,780.00 for failure to maintain, breach of quiet enjoyment, loss of amenity and inconvenience.

How much is owed for water rates?

The last water bill was paid $0.94 short therefore I make an order for this amount.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenants do not dispute they agreed that a cleaner could finish off the cleaning for them at the end of the tenancy, and they would pay for it.
I award $100.00 for cleaning as agreed.

Are the tenants 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.
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: burn mark on vanity, cat urine on carpet in dining area, black stains on carpet in bedroom 2, damage to wall in bedroom 3, and damage to the garage ceiling.
The tenants say the burn mark was caused by a cat knocking over an incense stick, they do not dispute their cat urinated in the corner but say this was due to the sewerage problem, the black stains came off the bed frame caused by mould, they sprayed the garage ceiling to remove mould, and they believe the amount claimed to repair the wall in bedroom 3 is too much.
I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage which I am satisfied falls within the careless category. The tenants did not provide any evidence that the landlord is to blame for mouldy conditions at the premises, nor is there any evidence of sewage reaching the lounge/dining area.
The amounts ordered are proved and commensurate with the damage caused. Tenants’ claim for compensation
[The tenant/s]
The landlord says they responded to the tenant’s calls, they sent out a plumber twice, the carpet was cleaned and dried, and they liaised with the local Council when the plumber identified a blockage. The landlord says they were monitoring the problem, and the tenant did not notify them that they were told not to use the toilets and shower.
Under section 45 RTA, a landlord must maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The tenants are also entitled to quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption (s.38 RTA). I find that the tenants did suffer a lack of amenity and inconvenience due to the protracted blockage (around 8 weeks) and sewage overflow, which led to a breach of their quiet enjoyment. I also note that the landlord did not mitigate any potential losses as they failed to visit the premises during this period and assess the tenant’s living conditions for themselves.
Given the breaches, I find the tenants are entitled to an award of general compensation. This is effectively a statutory entitlement to compensation that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to award (Mills & Murray v Auckland Property Management Solutions Ltd t/a Ray White TT 4085842, 14 August 2017). This can also be regarded as an award for general damages for stress and inconvenience pursuant to the common law (Reis & Reis v Rayner [2019] NZTT Tauranga 4160626, 4160602).
I award $1,800.00 to the tenants which is calculated as around one-third of rent paid over the 8 week period, as fair, reasonable and proportionate compensation. Filing fee
I decline to make any award for the respective filing fees. Name Suppression
Both parties have agreed to name suppression for each other.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176475 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5176475 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions