What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287284 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 5287284?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,092.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287284?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287284?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12610790-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287284 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 5287284?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Garage Door: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,092.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287284?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287284?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12610790-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5287284 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287284 — net $939.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: +442	$1,092.00	Rubbish removal: +442
Repairs: Wall damage	$500.00	Repairs: Wall damage
Repairs: Garage door	$300.00	Repairs: Garage door
Repairs: Fence damage	$460.00	Repairs: Fence damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$939.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$939.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Latu Falahingano Pouono must pay [The landlord/s] $939.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call. The landlord attended the hearing with her son supporting and at times assisting her during the hearing. In addition, the landlord was assisted with a Cantonese interpreter.
The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, 2 leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 3 and remove all rubbish. 4
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided oral evidence, photographs and video evidence which confirms there was a significant amount of rubbish that required removal by the landlord. The landlord provided invoices in support of the claim. The amount ordered $1,092 is proven.

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 5 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 6 Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 7
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). 8
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). 9 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 10
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 2 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 3 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 5 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 6 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 7 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 8 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 10 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 11 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. 12
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

DAMAGE IN THIS CASE

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Walls in the premises were damaged with holes and marks, b. the fence was damaged and required reinstalling, and c. the garage door glass panels were broken and the frame was cracked.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The damage appears likely to have been intentional.
I have awarded the full amount claimed in respect of the fence repair ($460)
The amount claimed for the garage door was $460. I make an order for $300 for garage door replacement because the garage door was replaced in 2019 with a second-hand door and has now been replaced with a new door. The reduced amount ordered reflects betterment and depreciation.
In respect of the wall repairs the amount claimed was $2070. I have ordered less than the amount claimed for the following reasons: a. The claim was for compensation in respect of an invoice for repairing holes and repainting the whole premises. I must consider betterment and depreciation. I consider the estimated lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is between 8-12 years and therefore the landlord should reasonably expect to re-paint the interior every 8-12 years. In this case the landlord purchased the property in 2015 and the premises has not been repainted since this time. b. The landlord did not provide a pre-tenancy inspection report to show the state of the walls at the commencement of the tenancy. c. In addition, photographs were not provided of the whole house to support the claim that there was damage throughout. Photographs were provided of 11 See section 49B(1) RTA. 12 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. a smaller bedroom that had significant holes, which required repair. The invoice did not itemise the tasks undertaken. d. I have allowed $300 for the repair of the holes in the walls and $200 as a contribution to the painting. I consider the total amount of $500 reasonably reflects the level of damage that the landlord has proven and that the walls had not been repainted for at least 10 years.
The amounts ordered are proved with post tenancy photographs, oral evidence and invoices.

BOND

I note the landlord holds a bond of $1,440 which was not lodged with the bond centre and I have deducted this from the total amount ordered.

FILING FEE

As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27. 13

SUPPRESSION

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. 14
The landlord sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5287284 — net $939.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: +442	$1,092.00	Rubbish removal: +442
Repairs: Wall damage	$500.00	Repairs: Wall damage
Repairs: Garage door	$300.00	Repairs: Garage door
Repairs: Fence damage	$460.00	Repairs: Fence damage
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$939.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$939.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Latu Falahingano Pouono must pay [The landlord/s] $939.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call. The landlord attended the hearing with her son supporting and at times assisting her during the hearing. In addition, the landlord was assisted with a Cantonese interpreter.
The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 DID THE TENANT COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS AT THE END OF THE

TENANCY?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must remove all his or her goods from the premises, 2 leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, 3 and remove all rubbish. 4
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided oral evidence, photographs and video evidence which confirms there was a significant amount of rubbish that required removal by the landlord. The landlord provided invoices in support of the claim. The amount ordered $1,092 is proven.

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 5 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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. 6 Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 7
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). 8
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). 9 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 10
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 2 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 3 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 5 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 6 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 7 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 8 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 9 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 10 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 11 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. 12
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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 must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

DAMAGE IN THIS CASE

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Walls in the premises were damaged with holes and marks, b. the fence was damaged and required reinstalling, and c. the garage door glass panels were broken and the frame was cracked.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The damage appears likely to have been intentional.
I have awarded the full amount claimed in respect of the fence repair ($460)
The amount claimed for the garage door was $460. I make an order for $300 for garage door replacement because the garage door was replaced in 2019 with a second-hand door and has now been replaced with a new door. The reduced amount ordered reflects betterment and depreciation.
In respect of the wall repairs the amount claimed was $2070. I have ordered less than the amount claimed for the following reasons: a. The claim was for compensation in respect of an invoice for repairing holes and repainting the whole premises. I must consider betterment and depreciation. I consider the estimated lifespan of painted walls in a rental property is between 8-12 years and therefore the landlord should reasonably expect to re-paint the interior every 8-12 years. In this case the landlord purchased the property in 2015 and the premises has not been repainted since this time. b. The landlord did not provide a pre-tenancy inspection report to show the state of the walls at the commencement of the tenancy. c. In addition, photographs were not provided of the whole house to support the claim that there was damage throughout. Photographs were provided of 11 See section 49B(1) RTA. 12 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. a smaller bedroom that had significant holes, which required repair. The invoice did not itemise the tasks undertaken. d. I have allowed $300 for the repair of the holes in the walls and $200 as a contribution to the painting. I consider the total amount of $500 reasonably reflects the level of damage that the landlord has proven and that the walls had not been repainted for at least 10 years.
The amounts ordered are proved with post tenancy photographs, oral evidence and invoices.

BOND

I note the landlord holds a bond of $1,440 which was not lodged with the bond centre and I have deducted this from the total amount ordered.

FILING FEE

As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27. 13

SUPPRESSION

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. 14
The landlord sought suppression and as the application is successful, I have made an order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287284 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287284 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANCY?

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

DAMAGE IN THIS CASE

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANCY?

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

DAMAGE IN THIS CASE

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions