What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5262300 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 5262300?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Blinds (37.5: $349.31 awarded to landlord; Carpet (37.5: $987.99 awarded to landlord; Repainting Walls (37.5: $1,593.46 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5262300?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5262300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12142097-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5262300 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 5262300?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Blinds (37.5: $349.31 awarded to landlord; Carpet (37.5: $987.99 awarded to landlord; Repainting Walls (37.5: $1,593.46 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5262300?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5262300?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12142097-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5262300 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5262300 — net $2,452.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Repainting walls (37.5	$1,593.46		Repairs: Repainting walls (37.5
Repairs: Blinds (37.5	$349.31		Repairs: Blinds (37.5
Repairs: Carpet (37.5	$987.99		Repairs: Carpet (37.5
Bond credit (with landlord		$504.82	Bond credit (with landlord
Total award	$2,957.76	$504.82
Net award	$2,452.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,452.94

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Lupe Fagota must pay [The landlord/s] $2,452.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, credit of the bond balance, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This tenancy was of almost five years. Prior to the tenancy the premises had been refurbished. The premises was marketed and sold after the tenancy ended.
The bond was previously released to the landlord by the tenant and applied against rent/water/cleaning and rubbish costs as mutually agreed. A balance of $504.82 remains and that is applied in this order.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed $931.50 for repairs of blinds and eight insurance excesses totalling $9,200.00. The owner cash settled with its insurer for $4,032.80.
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: The blinds were all damaged and needed repair.
The landlord provided an invoice for repair of $931.50. Photos showed a number of blinds in disrepair, mostly missing draw chains or strings. The invoice is accepted but a depreciated sum is awarded (see below) The walls were poorly patched by the tenant and required repainting.
The landlord provided an invoice of $11,488.50 split across two premises at this address. The share for this premises was $8,498.50. The tasks listed repainting the entire house (including the walls, doors, and ceilings). Photos show that the tenant attempted to patch numerous patches throughout the premises. She explained that she had intended to repaint the walls afterwards but she did not managed as she was in later stage pregnancy at that time. The invoice is accepted but only 50% is awarded for the walls repainting, recognising full painting of all areas, without evidence of any need due to tenant failures. A depreciated sum is awarded (see below) The carpet in many areas was stained and replaced.
The landlord provided an invoice for carpet and lino replacement of $7,487.80. Of that invoice, $3,763.80 is deemed related to top carpet replacement. Having reviewed the photos, I do not consider all carpeted arears have been proven as requiring replacement. I have used an estimation of 70% - reducing the tenant liability at invoice to $2,634.66. The invoice is accepted but a depreciated sum is awarded (see below)
The damage is considered as more than fair wear and tear (although not totally certain for all the blinds damage) and the tenant has not 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. I have adopted an eight- year economic life for all three claims. Given the tenancy was of five years duration that reduces tenant liability to 37.5% of the replacement costs accepted as liable above. I have also weighted the subsequent marketing and sale as having some motivation in the “whole of house” remediation approach and in adopting a strict application of the economic life and straight line depreciation in this instance. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5262300 — net $2,452.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Repairs: Repainting walls (37.5	$1,593.46		Repairs: Repainting walls (37.5
Repairs: Blinds (37.5	$349.31		Repairs: Blinds (37.5
Repairs: Carpet (37.5	$987.99		Repairs: Carpet (37.5
Bond credit (with landlord		$504.82	Bond credit (with landlord
Total award	$2,957.76	$504.82
Net award	$2,452.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,452.94

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Lupe Fagota must pay [The landlord/s] $2,452.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, conducted via video conference.
The landlord has applied for compensation, credit of the bond balance, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
This tenancy was of almost five years. Prior to the tenancy the premises had been refurbished. The premises was marketed and sold after the tenancy ended.
The bond was previously released to the landlord by the tenant and applied against rent/water/cleaning and rubbish costs as mutually agreed. A balance of $504.82 remains and that is applied in this order.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claimed $931.50 for repairs of blinds and eight insurance excesses totalling $9,200.00. The owner cash settled with its insurer for $4,032.80.
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: The blinds were all damaged and needed repair.
The landlord provided an invoice for repair of $931.50. Photos showed a number of blinds in disrepair, mostly missing draw chains or strings. The invoice is accepted but a depreciated sum is awarded (see below) The walls were poorly patched by the tenant and required repainting.
The landlord provided an invoice of $11,488.50 split across two premises at this address. The share for this premises was $8,498.50. The tasks listed repainting the entire house (including the walls, doors, and ceilings). Photos show that the tenant attempted to patch numerous patches throughout the premises. She explained that she had intended to repaint the walls afterwards but she did not managed as she was in later stage pregnancy at that time. The invoice is accepted but only 50% is awarded for the walls repainting, recognising full painting of all areas, without evidence of any need due to tenant failures. A depreciated sum is awarded (see below) The carpet in many areas was stained and replaced.
The landlord provided an invoice for carpet and lino replacement of $7,487.80. Of that invoice, $3,763.80 is deemed related to top carpet replacement. Having reviewed the photos, I do not consider all carpeted arears have been proven as requiring replacement. I have used an estimation of 70% - reducing the tenant liability at invoice to $2,634.66. The invoice is accepted but a depreciated sum is awarded (see below)
The damage is considered as more than fair wear and tear (although not totally certain for all the blinds damage) and the tenant has not 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. I have adopted an eight- year economic life for all three claims. Given the tenancy was of five years duration that reduces tenant liability to 37.5% of the replacement costs accepted as liable above. I have also weighted the subsequent marketing and sale as having some motivation in the “whole of house” remediation approach and in adopting a strict application of the economic life and straight line depreciation in this instance. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5262300 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5262300 — 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