What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457452 about?

The tribunal order states: The Landlords application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5457452?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457452?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13673351-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5457452 about?

The tribunal order states: The Landlords application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5457452?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5457452?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5457452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13673351-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Franco Road, Halswell, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5457452 — Smoke alarms

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5457452. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. The Bond Centre shall pay the Tenant	$2,400.00		2. The Bond Centre shall pay the Tenant

Order

The Landlords application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre shall pay the Tenant $2400.00 immediately.

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.
The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The Landlord claimed the Tenant failed to reinstate the plants along the back fence line of the property. The Landlord submitted there were mature evergreen bushes at the start of the tenancy. The Tenant asked if she could plant her roses in the same area. The Landlord agreed as long as the Tenant left the garden in the same condition as how it was found when the Tenant moved in.
At the end of the tenancy, the Landlord submitted their plants along the fence line were either dead or removed. The Tenant also added stones where there used to be bark. Photographs of the plants at the start and end of the tenancy were provided and the email between the parties on 20 March 2023 confirming the agreement regarding the Tenant’s roses.
The Tenant submitted the plants perished because of the extreme flooding that occurred in the back yard due to heavy rainfall. She notified the Landlord several times of this. As a result, the plants did not survive which included her late mothers roses due to the harsh environmental conditions and insufficient drainage. She laid stones along the fence line to soak up the flooding. She was a prizewinning gardener and provided photographs of the other areas of the garden which were well maintained. Photographs were also provided of the flooded area after it rained and text message correspondence between the parties praising the Tenant for keeping the property in an immaculate condition.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant did not cause the damage to the Landlords plants in the back fence line. From the photographs provided of the property, the overall condition of the garden and the unit indicated the Tenant paid consistent attention and respect for the property. She also sought permission before planting her late mothers’ roses, showing a very respectful and considerate attitude toward the Landlord’s property. I also accept the Tenant would have taken the utmost care to ensure her mothers roses flourished in the backyard and because of factors beyond her control, did not. Given these facts, I find the Tenant’s explanation—that flooding caused the plants to perish—to be credible and convincing. It is more likely than not that the Tenant did not cause the damage to the plants.
The claim is dismissed.

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 occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: carpet in the garage. The Landlord claimed for new carpet to the garage floor due to the Tenants tyre marks causing the Tenant to repeatedly manoeuvre the vehicle to avoid a treadmill stored against the wall. The Landlord submitted evidence from the repair company stating that the carpet had been excessively worn due to vehicle steering movements when entering and exiting the garage. The landlord submitted had the treadmill not been stored there, there would not have been excessive turning of the wheels wearing out the floors. The Landlord submitted the previous tenant did not leave similar damage to the floor. A photograph of the garage floor when the previous Tenant lived at the property was provided.
The tenant submitted the garage was intended for vehicle storage and that tyre marks on the garage carpet were consistent with normal use and fair wear and tear.
In considering the evidence, I accept the garage was intended for the parking and storage of vehicles. I find that the Tenant used the garage for its ordinary purpose and did not subject it to any use beyond what would reasonably be expected. The tyre marks and wear to the garage floor were fair wear and tear.
The claim is dismissed.
As the Landlord has not been substantially successful with their claim, name suppression is not granted and the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee. The Tenant has not requested name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5457452. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. The Bond Centre shall pay the Tenant	$2,400.00		2. The Bond Centre shall pay the Tenant

Order

The Landlords application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre shall pay the Tenant $2400.00 immediately.

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.
The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The Landlord claimed the Tenant failed to reinstate the plants along the back fence line of the property. The Landlord submitted there were mature evergreen bushes at the start of the tenancy. The Tenant asked if she could plant her roses in the same area. The Landlord agreed as long as the Tenant left the garden in the same condition as how it was found when the Tenant moved in.
At the end of the tenancy, the Landlord submitted their plants along the fence line were either dead or removed. The Tenant also added stones where there used to be bark. Photographs of the plants at the start and end of the tenancy were provided and the email between the parties on 20 March 2023 confirming the agreement regarding the Tenant’s roses.
The Tenant submitted the plants perished because of the extreme flooding that occurred in the back yard due to heavy rainfall. She notified the Landlord several times of this. As a result, the plants did not survive which included her late mothers roses due to the harsh environmental conditions and insufficient drainage. She laid stones along the fence line to soak up the flooding. She was a prizewinning gardener and provided photographs of the other areas of the garden which were well maintained. Photographs were also provided of the flooded area after it rained and text message correspondence between the parties praising the Tenant for keeping the property in an immaculate condition.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant did not cause the damage to the Landlords plants in the back fence line. From the photographs provided of the property, the overall condition of the garden and the unit indicated the Tenant paid consistent attention and respect for the property. She also sought permission before planting her late mothers’ roses, showing a very respectful and considerate attitude toward the Landlord’s property. I also accept the Tenant would have taken the utmost care to ensure her mothers roses flourished in the backyard and because of factors beyond her control, did not. Given these facts, I find the Tenant’s explanation—that flooding caused the plants to perish—to be credible and convincing. It is more likely than not that the Tenant did not cause the damage to the plants.
The claim is dismissed.

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 occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: carpet in the garage. The Landlord claimed for new carpet to the garage floor due to the Tenants tyre marks causing the Tenant to repeatedly manoeuvre the vehicle to avoid a treadmill stored against the wall. The Landlord submitted evidence from the repair company stating that the carpet had been excessively worn due to vehicle steering movements when entering and exiting the garage. The landlord submitted had the treadmill not been stored there, there would not have been excessive turning of the wheels wearing out the floors. The Landlord submitted the previous tenant did not leave similar damage to the floor. A photograph of the garage floor when the previous Tenant lived at the property was provided.
The tenant submitted the garage was intended for vehicle storage and that tyre marks on the garage carpet were consistent with normal use and fair wear and tear.
In considering the evidence, I accept the garage was intended for the parking and storage of vehicles. I find that the Tenant used the garage for its ordinary purpose and did not subject it to any use beyond what would reasonably be expected. The tyre marks and wear to the garage floor were fair wear and tear.
The claim is dismissed.
As the Landlord has not been substantially successful with their claim, name suppression is not granted and the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee. The Tenant has not requested name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457452 — Smoke alarms at 9 Franco Road, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5457452 — Smoke alarms at 9 Franco Road, Halswell, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions