How much money was awarded in case 5370502?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; To Skirting Boards: $548.85 awarded to landlord; to wooden floors – tenant contributi…: $983.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370502?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370502?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12886437-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5370502?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $200.00 awarded to landlord; To Skirting Boards: $548.85 awarded to landlord; to wooden floors – tenant contributi…: $983.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370502?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370502?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12886437-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

25 Kelmarna Avenue, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5370502 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5370502 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5370502 — net $1,760.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: to skirting boards	$548.85	Repairs: to skirting boards
Lawns and Garden work – tenant contribution	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work – tenant contribution
Repairs: to wooden floors – tenant contribution	$983.85	Repairs: to wooden floors – tenant contribution
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,760.70
Bond	$4,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,760.70

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,760.70 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,760.70 [The tenant/s]: $2,679.30

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 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 skirting boards in 5 areas were damaged, the flooring scratched and the lawns and gardens damaged. The damage was likely caused by the tenant’s dog that lived at the property, with permission, for the duration of the tenancy, and is more than fair wear and tear.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing a fair contribution from the tenants for the cost of repairing the wooden floors and restoring the lawns and gardens.

It is likely the wooden floors were in original condition (the house being around 80 or 90 years old). The landlord was unable to clarify when the floors had last been resurfaced. A google search confirms that wooden floors should be resurfaced around every 10 years or so. The pre-entry inspection photographs show scratches and marks on the flooring throughout the property. It is therefore likely that irrespective of the tenant’s dog the floors would have required resurfacing. I have therefore attempted to proportion the area of floor actually damaged by the dog scratching/gouging it and in the absence of a scientific measurement apportioned 10% of the invoice to “dog damage”.

This apportionment ensures to the extent that this is possible on the evidence provided, that the landlord is returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and is not either better or worse off.

In calculating depreciation, I have therefore taken into account the age and condition of the flooring at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.

In apportioning the gardening invoice, I have taken account of the tenant’s submission that replacement of some of the plants/lawns was due to weather/external factors and only some damage attributable to the dog. The invoice was not broken down so the apportionment is considered fair based on the evidence and submissions provided.

I have awarded the landlord the fling fee as the application is party successful.

I have approved both parties’ requests for name suppression as the tenants’ bond has covered their liability and they were allowed the pet, there is therefore negligible public interest in publishing their names.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5370502 — net $1,760.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: to skirting boards	$548.85	Repairs: to skirting boards
Lawns and Garden work – tenant contribution	$200.00	Lawns and Garden work – tenant contribution
Repairs: to wooden floors – tenant contribution	$983.85	Repairs: to wooden floors – tenant contribution
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,760.70
Bond	$4,440.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,760.70

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,760.70 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,440.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,760.70 [The tenant/s]: $2,679.30

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 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 skirting boards in 5 areas were damaged, the flooring scratched and the lawns and gardens damaged. The damage was likely caused by the tenant’s dog that lived at the property, with permission, for the duration of the tenancy, and is more than fair wear and tear.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation when assessing a fair contribution from the tenants for the cost of repairing the wooden floors and restoring the lawns and gardens.
It is likely the wooden floors were in original condition (the house being around 80 or 90 years old). The landlord was unable to clarify when the floors had last been resurfaced. A google search confirms that wooden floors should be resurfaced around every 10 years or so. The pre-entry inspection photographs show scratches and marks on the flooring throughout the property. It is therefore likely that irrespective of the tenant’s dog the floors would have required resurfacing. I have therefore attempted to proportion the area of floor actually damaged by the dog scratching/gouging it and in the absence of a scientific measurement apportioned 10% of the invoice to “dog damage”.
This apportionment ensures to the extent that this is possible on the evidence provided, that the landlord is returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and is not either better or worse off.
In calculating depreciation, I have therefore taken into account the age and condition of the flooring at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
In apportioning the gardening invoice, I have taken account of the tenant’s submission that replacement of some of the plants/lawns was due to weather/external factors and only some damage attributable to the dog. The invoice was not broken down so the apportionment is considered fair based on the evidence and submissions provided.
I have awarded the landlord the fling fee as the application is party successful.
I have approved both parties’ requests for name suppression as the tenants’ bond has covered their liability and they were allowed the pet, there is therefore negligible public interest in publishing their names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370502 — Property damage at 25 Kelmarna Avenue, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370502 — Property damage at 25 Kelmarna Avenue, Ponsonby, Auckland 1011

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