What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5234321?

The tribunal order states: Nancy Richmond to pay Rachael and Wayne Cooper $777.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5234321?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234321?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12167843-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5234321?

The tribunal order states: Nancy Richmond to pay Rachael and Wayne Cooper $777.00 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 5234321?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5234321?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5234321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12167843-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34 Ladeira Place, Fitzroy, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5234321 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5234321 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for the cabinets	$750.00	Insurance excess for the cabinets
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$777.00

Both parties attended the hearing.

Both parties have made an application for refund of the bond. The landlord is claiming compensation for two insurances excesses, one for replacing kitchen cabinets and one for replacing a hob.

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

There is a claim for replacing some of the kitchen cabinetry because of water damage. There is no dispute the damage happened during the tenancy. The landlord provided photos, a report from a plumber stating the inside of the island was not damaged, a report from a building inspector which has good photos of the damage, and the report done by the insurance assessor which concludes there was a one-off water flood.

The tenant replied that there was no flood during the tenancy. She provided me with evidence she reported a leak to the landlord in January. At the time she wiped up the water under the sink, hand tightened the pipes, and let the landlord know. She said the water damage must have come from a leak, rather than from a flood.

I am more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence. It seems unlikely the damage came from a leak under the sink when all the specialists have reported the cabinetry inside of the island was dry and undamaged. The claim for the insurance excess in the amount of $750 is proved and allowed.

The claim for the replacement hob is because of a crack in the top of the hob. The parties agree there was a small chip in the hob at the start of the tenancy. The landlord said this was irrelevant to the claim because the chip had been there for about four years and had not affected how the hob functioned.

The landlord has provided me with photos, the report from the insurance assessor, and an opinion from an appliance business which states:

The tenant reported the crack to the landlord during the tenancy. She said this happened while cooking in the usual way. After the crack formed two other chips appeared in the glass. The tenant said there was no careless or intentional damage. She continued to use the hob until the end of the tenancy, which was almost two months after the damage was reported.

I am not persuaded by the landlord’s submission and evidence. There is a possibility that the structural integrity of the hob was affected by the earlier chip. The appliance business emphasised that it was only “likely” the crack came from a dropped object. I also note the tenant used the hob until the end of the tenancy, so the crack did not affect functionality. There is nothing in the landlord’s information that states the hob was not safe to use. Taken together, I am not persuaded the tenant carelessly or intentionally damaged the hob, or that the hob had to be replaced. This claim is dismissed. Other orders

A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

The tenant has made an application for suppression. This is not allowed because she is not the most successful party, and because there is public interest when tenants have to pay compensation at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5234321 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for the cabinets	$750.00	Insurance excess for the cabinets
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$777.00

Order

Nancy Richmond to pay Rachael and Wayne Cooper $777.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 (6306976-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Rachael and Wayne Cooper: $777.00 Nancy Richmond: $1,943.00
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Both parties have made an application for refund of the bond. The landlord is claiming compensation for two insurances excesses, one for replacing kitchen cabinets and one for replacing a hob.

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 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
There is a claim for replacing some of the kitchen cabinetry because of water damage. There is no dispute the damage happened during the tenancy. The landlord provided photos, a report from a plumber stating the inside of the island was not damaged, a report from a building inspector which has good photos of the damage, and the report done by the insurance assessor which concludes there was a one-off water flood.
The tenant replied that there was no flood during the tenancy. She provided me with evidence she reported a leak to the landlord in January. At the time she wiped up the water under the sink, hand tightened the pipes, and let the landlord know. She said the water damage must have come from a leak, rather than from a flood.
I am more persuaded by the landlord’s evidence. It seems unlikely the damage came from a leak under the sink when all the specialists have reported the cabinetry inside of the island was dry and undamaged. The claim for the insurance excess in the amount of $750 is proved and allowed.
The claim for the replacement hob is because of a crack in the top of the hob. The parties agree there was a small chip in the hob at the start of the tenancy. The landlord said this was irrelevant to the claim because the chip had been there for about four years and had not affected how the hob functioned.
The landlord has provided me with photos, the report from the insurance assessor, and an opinion from an appliance business which states:
The tenant reported the crack to the landlord during the tenancy. She said this happened while cooking in the usual way. After the crack formed two other chips appeared in the glass. The tenant said there was no careless or intentional damage. She continued to use the hob until the end of the tenancy, which was almost two months after the damage was reported.
I am not persuaded by the landlord’s submission and evidence. There is a possibility that the structural integrity of the hob was affected by the earlier chip. The appliance business emphasised that it was only “likely” the crack came from a dropped object. I also note the tenant used the hob until the end of the tenancy, so the crack did not affect functionality. There is nothing in the landlord’s information that states the hob was not safe to use. Taken together, I am not persuaded the tenant carelessly or intentionally damaged the hob, or that the hob had to be replaced. This claim is dismissed. Other orders
A request has been sent to the Bond Centre.
Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The tenant has made an application for suppression. This is not allowed because she is not the most successful party, and because there is public interest when tenants have to pay compensation at the end of a tenancy. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5234321 — Property damage at 34 Ladeira Place, Fitzroy, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5234321 — Property damage at 34 Ladeira Place, Fitzroy, Hamilton 3206

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