How much money was awarded in case 5390222?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wall: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,303.07 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390222?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390222?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13153579-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5390222?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Hole In Wall: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpet: $1,303.07 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390222?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390222?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13153579-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

11 Esplanade, Te Kuiti, Te Kuiti 3910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5390222 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5390222 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 5390222 — net $2,931.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpet	$1,303.07	Replace furnishings: carpet
Repairs: hole in wall	$400.00	Repairs: hole in wall
Repairs: painting	$1,200.00	Repairs: painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,931.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,931.07

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Emily Te Paea and Gilbert Te Paea must pay [The landlord/s] $2,931.07 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Replace furnishings: carpet$1,303.07 Repairs: hole in wall$400.00 Repairs: painting$1,200.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$2,931.07 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,931.07

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation 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 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 landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpet in the hallway was damaged beyond repair by staining and required replacement. b. There was a hole in the dining/kitchen area. c. There were numerous scuff marks and paint damage throughout the property requiring repainting. d. The front door handle and lock was broken.

The tenant responsibly accepted the damage to the hallway carpet. It is careless damage and so the tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks’ rent as the landlord was uninsured. The amount claimed is less than the four weeks’ rent.

The Tribunal must consider depreciation and betterment. The landlord explained that the carpet was replaced and the property refurbished in June 2024. The carpet was therefore one year old. The Inland Revenue Department’s schedule of depreciation shows that carpet has a life of eight years. It is therefore appropriate to deduct 1/8 th from the amount claimed.

The tenant also accepted responsibility for the hole in the kitchen/dining wall and the superficial damage to the walls. The landlord claimed that because of its nature and extent, the damage was not fair wear and tear.

Having considered the landlord’s photographic evidence, the Tribunal accepts that much of the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant is liable for the full cost of the wall repair. However, a proportion of the painting for scrape and scuff marks can be expected to be fair wear and tear. An amount has therefore been deducted from the amount claimed to reflect what would be a fair proportion for the tenant to pay.

The tenant denied liability for the replacement of the front door handle. The tenant explained that she had been a tenant in the property for eight years and that the front door handle was not replaced as part of the refurbishment and that it had been a minor issue to them.

The landlord had no evidence of the damage to the door handle that would persuade the Tribunal that the door handle was damaged carelessly or intentionally by the tenant. After a lifespan of at least eight years, it is reasonable to conclude that the door handle had worn out and that it would have no economic value for which the landlord could be compensated.

The landlord’s claim for the replacement of the door handle is dismissed.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390222 — net $2,931.07 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: carpet	$1,303.07	Replace furnishings: carpet
Repairs: hole in wall	$400.00	Repairs: hole in wall
Repairs: painting	$1,200.00	Repairs: painting
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,931.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,931.07

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Emily Te Paea and Gilbert Te Paea must pay [The landlord/s] $2,931.07 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Replace furnishings: carpet$1,303.07 Repairs: hole in wall$400.00 Repairs: painting$1,200.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$2,931.07 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,931.07

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation 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 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 landlord claimed that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The carpet in the hallway was damaged beyond repair by staining and required replacement. b. There was a hole in the dining/kitchen area. c. There were numerous scuff marks and paint damage throughout the property requiring repainting. d. The front door handle and lock was broken.
The tenant responsibly accepted the damage to the hallway carpet. It is careless damage and so the tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks’ rent as the landlord was uninsured. The amount claimed is less than the four weeks’ rent.
The Tribunal must consider depreciation and betterment. The landlord explained that the carpet was replaced and the property refurbished in June 2024. The carpet was therefore one year old. The Inland Revenue Department’s schedule of depreciation shows that carpet has a life of eight years. It is therefore appropriate to deduct 1/8 th from the amount claimed.
The tenant also accepted responsibility for the hole in the kitchen/dining wall and the superficial damage to the walls. The landlord claimed that because of its nature and extent, the damage was not fair wear and tear.
Having considered the landlord’s photographic evidence, the Tribunal accepts that much of the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant is liable for the full cost of the wall repair. However, a proportion of the painting for scrape and scuff marks can be expected to be fair wear and tear. An amount has therefore been deducted from the amount claimed to reflect what would be a fair proportion for the tenant to pay.
The tenant denied liability for the replacement of the front door handle. The tenant explained that she had been a tenant in the property for eight years and that the front door handle was not replaced as part of the refurbishment and that it had been a minor issue to them.
The landlord had no evidence of the damage to the door handle that would persuade the Tribunal that the door handle was damaged carelessly or intentionally by the tenant. After a lifespan of at least eight years, it is reasonable to conclude that the door handle had worn out and that it would have no economic value for which the landlord could be compensated.
The landlord’s claim for the replacement of the door handle is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390222 — Property damage at 11 Esplanade, Te Kuiti, Te Kuiti 3910

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390222 — Property damage at 11 Esplanade, Te Kuiti, Te Kuiti 3910

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