What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5196193?

The tribunal order states: Dorothy Tiopira and Joseph Harding Dondald McLeod to pay $68.00 to Eves

How much money was awarded in case 5196193?

Property Damage: $498.04 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,070.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5196193?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5196193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11673665-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5196193?

The tribunal order states: Dorothy Tiopira and Joseph Harding Dondald McLeod to pay $68.00 to Eves

How much money was awarded in case 5196193?

Property Damage: $498.04 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,070.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5196193?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5196193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11673665-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

185 Clayton Road, Mangakakahi, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5196193 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5196193. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Gas hob assessment and repair	$498.04		Gas hob assessment and repair
Insurance excesses for carpet damage	$2,070.00		Insurance excesses for carpet damage

Dorothy Tiopira and Joseph Harding Dondald McLeod to pay $68.00 to Eves Realty Limited immediately. DescriptionLandlord Gas hob assessment and repair$498.04 Insurance excesses for carpet damage$2,070.00 Total award$2,568.04 Minus Bond$2,250.00 Tenant to pay$68.00

The Bond Centre is to pay the full bond of $2,250.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, 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 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. Damage to oven hob: The Landlord stated the glass surface of the oven hob was cracked and required replacement. The Tenant said a small crack appeared over a year ago after a pot was dropped, and it worsened due to the Landlord’s inaction despite requests for repair. The Landlord provided inspection photos from under six months ago showing no visible damage, though the corner in question was not captured. Other photos demonstrate the property manager's attention to detail. I am satisfied that had the Tenant reported the crack, or had one been present, it would have been noted and addressed during the last inspection, and observable in that particular photograph. I find the Tenant more likely than not damaged the oven top. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The damage is careless, and I award $498.04 for assessment of the damage and replacement of the hob. b. Carpet damaged (3x insurance excesses @ $550, and 1x insurance excess at $420.00): The Landlord claims extensive carpet staining in four rooms, especially the lounge, including vibrant drink stains, and a sticky substance resembling chewing gum, and possible hair dye, in the bedrooms, which also have general staining. The Tenant accepts responsibility for the stains but felt four insurance excesses was excessive. The Landlord’s insurance covered replacement but required four excess payments totalling $2,070.00. While the Tribunal generally assesses damage per event, the extent and variety of staining make it impractical to isolate specific incidents. Given the carpet was new at the tenancy’s start and the Landlord reasonably anticipated a large household, I find the damage careless and accept the Landlord’s loss as the four insurance excesses, and nothing more than this amount

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.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5196193. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Gas hob assessment and repair	$498.04		Gas hob assessment and repair
Insurance excesses for carpet damage	$2,070.00		Insurance excesses for carpet damage

Order

Dorothy Tiopira and Joseph Harding Dondald McLeod to pay $68.00 to Eves Realty Limited immediately. DescriptionLandlord Gas hob assessment and repair$498.04 Insurance excesses for carpet damage$2,070.00 Total award$2,568.04 Minus Bond$2,250.00 Tenant to pay$68.00
The Bond Centre is to pay the full bond of $2,250.00 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, 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 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. Damage to oven hob: The Landlord stated the glass surface of the oven hob was cracked and required replacement. The Tenant said a small crack appeared over a year ago after a pot was dropped, and it worsened due to the Landlord’s inaction despite requests for repair. The Landlord provided inspection photos from under six months ago showing no visible damage, though the corner in question was not captured. Other photos demonstrate the property manager's attention to detail. I am satisfied that had the Tenant reported the crack, or had one been present, it would have been noted and addressed during the last inspection, and observable in that particular photograph. I find the Tenant more likely than not damaged the oven top. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The damage is careless, and I award $498.04 for assessment of the damage and replacement of the hob. b. Carpet damaged (3x insurance excesses @ $550, and 1x insurance excess at $420.00): The Landlord claims extensive carpet staining in four rooms, especially the lounge, including vibrant drink stains, and a sticky substance resembling chewing gum, and possible hair dye, in the bedrooms, which also have general staining. The Tenant accepts responsibility for the stains but felt four insurance excesses was excessive. The Landlord’s insurance covered replacement but required four excess payments totalling $2,070.00. While the Tribunal generally assesses damage per event, the extent and variety of staining make it impractical to isolate specific incidents. Given the carpet was new at the tenancy’s start and the Landlord reasonably anticipated a large household, I find the damage careless and accept the Landlord’s loss as the four insurance excesses, and nothing more than this amount
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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5196193 — Property damage at 185 Clayton Road, Mangakakahi, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5196193 — Property damage at 185 Clayton Road, Mangakakahi, Rotorua 3015

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