What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341823 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (3317682-007) to [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5341823?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341823?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12667117-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5341823 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (3317682-007) to [The tenant/s]

How much money was awarded in case 5341823?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5341823?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5341823?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12667117-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

152 Vagues Road, Northcote, Christchurch 8052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5341823 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The applicant seeks reimbursement of $400.00 representing the insurance excess paid for the replacement of an inbuilt benchtop stove. Both parties accept that the damage occurred during the tenancy as a result of an impact which caused a chip, and that the structural integrity of the stove was subsequently compromised, leading to the development of a hairline crack.

In the context of the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) and tenancy tribunal proceedings, damage generally falls into three primary categories: intentional, careless, and fair wear and tear. Accidental damage may arise as a subcategory within these, and its proper classification depends on the overall circumstances of the incident. Whether damage is accidental forms part of a holistic assessment of its nature and cause.

In this case, the damage to the stovetop clearly resulted from an impact. While the tenants were the immediate cause, a minor dent of the kind shown in the evidence is reasonably to be expected in the normal use of a stove over time. Accordingly, the damage is most appropriately classified as fair wear and tear.

The subsequent development of a hairline crack does not alter this assessment, as the primary consideration concerns the nature and cause of the original damage. Although this outcome represents a cost to the landlord, such repairs are part of the ordinary expenses inherent in operating a rental business and are ultimately compensated for in the rent paid by tenants.

Because I have found that the tenants bear no liability in relation to this damage, it is unnecessary to consider depreciation or betterment in detail. However, I note that the Inland Revenue Department’s depreciation guidelines indicate that the expected useful life of a residential stove is approximately eight years, and it is likely that this appliance was fully depreciated.

Furthermore, where a tenant may be held liable for an insurance excess, that excess must be specified in the tenancy agreement. In this case, no such excess is recorded.

For the reasons outlined above, the claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Furthermore, where a tenant may be held liable for an insurance excess, that excess must be specified in the tenancy agreement. In this case, no such excess is recorded.

For the reasons outlined above, the claims are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341823 — Property damage at 152 Vagues Road, Northcote, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5341823 — Property damage at 152 Vagues Road, Northcote, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions