What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421513 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 5421513?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Vanity Top: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Wall Cabinet: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Hob Ceramic Top: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Internal Doors: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpets: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421513?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421513?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13429048-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421513 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 5421513?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Vanity Top: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Wall Cabinet: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Hob Ceramic Top: $700.00 awarded to landlord; Internal Doors: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Carpets: $2,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421513?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421513?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13429048-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

69A Valley View Road, Lower Kaimai, RD 1, Tauranga 3171 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421513 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421513 — net $5,628.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: wall damage	$2,800.00	Repairs: wall damage
Repairs: bathroom vanity top	$700.00	Repairs: bathroom vanity top
Repairs: bathroom wall cabinet	$700.00	Repairs: bathroom wall cabinet
Repairs: hob ceramic top	$700.00	Repairs: hob ceramic top
Repairs: internal doors	$500.00	Repairs: internal doors
Replace furnishings: carpets	$2,800.00	Replace furnishings: carpets
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,628.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,628.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tonga Saimone Afungia must pay [The landlord/s] $5,628.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Repairs: wall damage$2,800.00 Repairs: bathroom vanity top$700.00 Repairs: bathroom wall cabinet$700.00 Repairs: hob ceramic top$700.00 Repairs: internal doors$500.00 Replace furnishings: carpets$2,800.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$8,228.00 Bond$2,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,628.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

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. There was damage to the walls in the three bedrooms and the lounge. Some of the damage was due to items scrapping against the walls. Some of the damage was holes in walls. b. The top of the vanity was broken and required replacement. The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage which was careless. c. The doors to the bathroom cabinet were removed and could not be replaced so that the cabinet itself was replaced. d. There was a crack to the back left of the ceramic hob which could not be repaired and so the hob required replacement. e. The concertina door in the lounge was damaged beyond repair. A bedroom door handle and a wardrobe doorknob were broken. A door in the hallway required reinstatement. f. There was staining to the three bedrooms’, hallway and lounge carpet that could not be removed and required replacement. The carpets were two years old. g. A curtain track was damaged and required reinstatement.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of the damage, except for that in one bedroom for which there was no evidence of damage to the walls, the carpet or the curtain track.
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. The paint on the walls was fragile as it had been spray painted over MDF rather than plaster. b. The curtain track kept coming off as it was not attached to a solid wall or stud and the MDF could not support the curtain’s weight. c. The door handles were old and broke through ordinary use. d. The mirror doors to the bathroom cabinet were in the hot water cupboard. e. He could not understand the staining to the carpet and denied that it was so bad in the lounge and hallway that it required replacement.
The tenant accepted that the bedroom for which the landlord could not provide photographs had suffered similar wall damage to the other bedrooms. He did not accept that the carpet in that bedroom had been damaged beyond repair.
While the paint on the walls was fragile, the tenant does not appear to have taken any steps to minimise the damage which was being caused by his and the other occupants’ actions. The damage was therefore careless damage.
It was the tenant’s responsibility to reinstate the doors to the cupboard in the bathroom and it was not unreasonable for the landlord to replace the cupboard when they were not in place.
The landlord provided evidence of the landlord’s insurance company accepting the landlord’s claims where the excess was smaller than the cost of repair. However, without photographic evidence or the tenant’s agreement, the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the carpet in one bedroom was damaged beyond repair.
In the absence of photographic evidence of the damage to the curtain track and wall, the landlord has not been able to prove the extent of the damage. In any event, the tenant is not responsible for the reinstallation of the curtain track because its failure to remain attached was not due to any action of the tenant but due to an inherent defect in its installation.
Given their age and condition, the Tribunal accepts that the damage to the door handles was fair wear and tear for which the tenant is not responsible. The lounge door which was replaced was at the end of its life and so only a nominal amount has been awarded for its replacement.
This is the only deduction for depreciation or betterment made by the Tribunal in calculating compensation as the landlord has claimed the insurance excesses in each other claim and has provided evidence of the greater actual costs incurred by the landlord’s insurer. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421513 — net $5,628.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: wall damage	$2,800.00	Repairs: wall damage
Repairs: bathroom vanity top	$700.00	Repairs: bathroom vanity top
Repairs: bathroom wall cabinet	$700.00	Repairs: bathroom wall cabinet
Repairs: hob ceramic top	$700.00	Repairs: hob ceramic top
Repairs: internal doors	$500.00	Repairs: internal doors
Replace furnishings: carpets	$2,800.00	Replace furnishings: carpets
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,628.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,628.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Tonga Saimone Afungia must pay [The landlord/s] $5,628.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Repairs: wall damage$2,800.00 Repairs: bathroom vanity top$700.00 Repairs: bathroom wall cabinet$700.00 Repairs: hob ceramic top$700.00 Repairs: internal doors$500.00 Replace furnishings: carpets$2,800.00 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$8,228.00 Bond$2,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$5,628.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Standard of proof and evidence
In considering the claims, the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is more likely than not. Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
The Tribunal does not need to be completely certain, but it needs to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding each claim, all the evidence presented, including oral testimony, has been considered and weighed to decide what is more likely. Certain types of evidence carry more weight, which must be considered when weighing all the evidence.
Contemporaneous documents such as emails, texts, videos and photographs are often helpful in making factual findings, especially where facts are disputed or there are gaps in the recollection of the parties.
While this decision has not referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing or filed with the Tribunal, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. In the interests of conciseness, only the most relevant or important evidence has been referred to in this Order. Any evidence that was not directly relevant to proving a claim that was part of the application has been omitted.
By accepting the evidence of one person over that of another person, it is not because the Tribunal does not believe the first person’s evidence. Instead, the Tribunal has determined that the evidence of the other person is more likely and may be supported by other evidence that makes it more likely.
It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
The Tribunal must also have regard to the general principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case, as required by section 85(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

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. There was damage to the walls in the three bedrooms and the lounge. Some of the damage was due to items scrapping against the walls. Some of the damage was holes in walls. b. The top of the vanity was broken and required replacement. The tenant accepted responsibility for the damage which was careless. c. The doors to the bathroom cabinet were removed and could not be replaced so that the cabinet itself was replaced. d. There was a crack to the back left of the ceramic hob which could not be repaired and so the hob required replacement. e. The concertina door in the lounge was damaged beyond repair. A bedroom door handle and a wardrobe doorknob were broken. A door in the hallway required reinstatement. f. There was staining to the three bedrooms’, hallway and lounge carpet that could not be removed and required replacement. The carpets were two years old. g. A curtain track was damaged and required reinstatement.
The landlord provided photographic evidence of the damage, except for that in one bedroom for which there was no evidence of damage to the walls, the carpet or the curtain track.
The tenant gave evidence as follows: a. The paint on the walls was fragile as it had been spray painted over MDF rather than plaster. b. The curtain track kept coming off as it was not attached to a solid wall or stud and the MDF could not support the curtain’s weight. c. The door handles were old and broke through ordinary use. d. The mirror doors to the bathroom cabinet were in the hot water cupboard. e. He could not understand the staining to the carpet and denied that it was so bad in the lounge and hallway that it required replacement.
The tenant accepted that the bedroom for which the landlord could not provide photographs had suffered similar wall damage to the other bedrooms. He did not accept that the carpet in that bedroom had been damaged beyond repair.
While the paint on the walls was fragile, the tenant does not appear to have taken any steps to minimise the damage which was being caused by his and the other occupants’ actions. The damage was therefore careless damage.
It was the tenant’s responsibility to reinstate the doors to the cupboard in the bathroom and it was not unreasonable for the landlord to replace the cupboard when they were not in place.
The landlord provided evidence of the landlord’s insurance company accepting the landlord’s claims where the excess was smaller than the cost of repair. However, without photographic evidence or the tenant’s agreement, the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the carpet in one bedroom was damaged beyond repair.
In the absence of photographic evidence of the damage to the curtain track and wall, the landlord has not been able to prove the extent of the damage. In any event, the tenant is not responsible for the reinstallation of the curtain track because its failure to remain attached was not due to any action of the tenant but due to an inherent defect in its installation.
Given their age and condition, the Tribunal accepts that the damage to the door handles was fair wear and tear for which the tenant is not responsible. The lounge door which was replaced was at the end of its life and so only a nominal amount has been awarded for its replacement.
This is the only deduction for depreciation or betterment made by the Tribunal in calculating compensation as the landlord has claimed the insurance excesses in each other claim and has provided evidence of the greater actual costs incurred by the landlord’s insurer. Filing fee
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421513 — Property damage at 69A Valley View Road, Lower Kaimai, RD 1, Tauranga 3171

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421513 — Property damage at 69A Valley View Road, Lower Kaimai, RD 1, Tauranga 3171

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