How much money was awarded in case 5437110?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $636.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437110?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13731080-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5437110?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $636.81 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437110?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13731080-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 4, 86-90 Elliot Street, Pahurehure, Papakura Tenancy Tribunal Case 5437110 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5437110 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 5437110 — net $664.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$636.81	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$664.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$664.81

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

Nadia Crawford must pay [The landlord/s] $664.81 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Repairs$636.81 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$664.81 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$664.81

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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 provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. There were marks on a wall in the downstairs toilet where the tenant had tried to repair damage. b. There was an inexpertly repaired hole in the wall outside the bathroom. c. There were fixtures remaining from the installation of child gates at the top and bottom of the stairwell which needed to be removed and then the surfaces restored.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord had claimed for the repair of another area in the hallway but was unable to provide photographic evidence of the damage. The amount itemised in the landlord’s invoice for this work has been deducted. The remaining amounts claimed are fair and reasonable for work of this nature based on invoices the Tribunal regularly sees for work of this nature.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have considered 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. The premises were new at the time the tenant moved in and the tenancy was only for six months. It is not therefore appropriate to deduct any amounts for betterment or depreciation.

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

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5437110 — net $664.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$636.81	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$664.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$664.81

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Nadia Crawford must pay [The landlord/s] $664.81 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below. DescriptionLandlord Repairs$636.81 Filing fee reimbursement$28.00 Total award$664.81 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$664.81

Reasons

The landlord attended the video hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.
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 provided photographic evidence that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. There were marks on a wall in the downstairs toilet where the tenant had tried to repair damage. b. There was an inexpertly repaired hole in the wall outside the bathroom. c. There were fixtures remaining from the installation of child gates at the top and bottom of the stairwell which needed to be removed and then the surfaces restored.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord had claimed for the repair of another area in the hallway but was unable to provide photographic evidence of the damage. The amount itemised in the landlord’s invoice for this work has been deducted. The remaining amounts claimed are fair and reasonable for work of this nature based on invoices the Tribunal regularly sees for work of this nature.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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. The premises were new at the time the tenant moved in and the tenancy was only for six months. It is not therefore appropriate to deduct any amounts for betterment or depreciation.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437110 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 4, 86-90 Elliot Street, Pahurehure, Papakura

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437110 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 4, 86-90 Elliot Street, Pahurehure, Papakura

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions