What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5467152 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 5467152?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5467152?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5467152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13608977-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5467152 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 5467152?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $650.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5467152?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5467152?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13608977-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5467152 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5467152 — net $1,180.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: By consent	$2.00	2. The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Repairs: Lounge flooring insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Lounge flooring insurance excess
Repairs: Walls	$650.00	Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,180.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,180.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Carmel Vasati Mele Uilelea and Kabiri Uilelea to pay [The landlord/s] $1,180.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,180.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,220.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Carmel Vasati Mele Uilelea and Kabiri Uilelea immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, 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.
At the hearing the Tenant agreed to pay the Landlord for the water rates arrears.

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: Lounge floor scratches and wall damage.
The Landlord claimed $500.00 in insurance excess for damage to the lounge floor which had multiple scratches in a concentrated area. in support of their claim, a photograph was provided of the scratches, an ingoing inspection report and the Landlord submitted the house was a newbuild. The Landlord submitted the Tenants were the first occupants. An insurance policy was provided to confirm the insurance excess.
The Tenant did not agree with paying for this damage as they submitted it was wear and tear. They submitted they only saw it at the end of the tenancy when the sun shone on the lounge floor but otherwise, they did not know what caused this. They provided email correspondence showing the Landlord and Tenant disputing this damage.
In considering the evidence, I find from the photograph provided by the Landlord that the scratches were concentrated in one area of the lounge. Had this been fair wear and tear, it would be expected that there were scratches all over the lounge floor.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The Landlord claimed $650.00 for damages to 6 walls around the stair area. They showed photographs of patches by the stairs where attempts were made to repair damage to the walls. The Landlord provided an invoice for the repairs which involved patching and painting. They noted this was a brand new property at the start of the tenancy.
The Tenant acknowledged that the damages to the walls were due to moving items in the house such as the bed and furniture. They tried to wipe some marks off which came clean and they used paint from mitre 10 to paint the patches. They denied there being any holes to repair. They painted the areas with a similar colour to the rest of the walls. They considered they should not pay for anything.
In considering the evidence, I find the wall damage was more than wear and tear because the Tenants attempted to repair the damage in a different paint colour. When asked if they had reported these damages to the Landlord, they stated no. Tenants are obliged to report any damages to the Landlord and it would have assisted because the correct paint colour could have been ascertained. In considering the evidence, I find the patch marks are more than wear and tear.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The Landlord claimed for pest control due to a cockroach infestation which they discovered at the end of the tenancy. They provided a photograph of a dead cockroach on the stove top and an invoice that confirmed the date pest control attended the property. There was nothing in the invoice which confirmed there was a cockroach issue.
The Tenant noted that they had cleaned the stove top and removed the cockroach since the photograph was taken. They provided a photograph of a clean stove top in support.
In considering the evidence, I find the one photograph of the cockroach on the stove top and pest control report did not substantiate the need for pest control to attend. Had there been confirmation in the pest control report that there was an issue, this would have been more persuasive for their claim.
For these reasons, the claim for pest control is dismissed.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful with their application, name suppression is granted to the Landlord and the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee. As the Tenant has not been substantially successful, name suppression is not granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5467152 — net $1,180.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates: By consent	$2.00	2. The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Repairs: Lounge flooring insurance excess	$500.00	Repairs: Lounge flooring insurance excess
Repairs: Walls	$650.00	Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,180.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,180.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Carmel Vasati Mele Uilelea and Kabiri Uilelea to pay [The landlord/s] $1,180.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,180.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,220.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Carmel Vasati Mele Uilelea and Kabiri Uilelea immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for water rates arrears, 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.
At the hearing the Tenant agreed to pay the Landlord for the water rates arrears.

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: Lounge floor scratches and wall damage.
The Landlord claimed $500.00 in insurance excess for damage to the lounge floor which had multiple scratches in a concentrated area. in support of their claim, a photograph was provided of the scratches, an ingoing inspection report and the Landlord submitted the house was a newbuild. The Landlord submitted the Tenants were the first occupants. An insurance policy was provided to confirm the insurance excess.
The Tenant did not agree with paying for this damage as they submitted it was wear and tear. They submitted they only saw it at the end of the tenancy when the sun shone on the lounge floor but otherwise, they did not know what caused this. They provided email correspondence showing the Landlord and Tenant disputing this damage.
In considering the evidence, I find from the photograph provided by the Landlord that the scratches were concentrated in one area of the lounge. Had this been fair wear and tear, it would be expected that there were scratches all over the lounge floor.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The Landlord claimed $650.00 for damages to 6 walls around the stair area. They showed photographs of patches by the stairs where attempts were made to repair damage to the walls. The Landlord provided an invoice for the repairs which involved patching and painting. They noted this was a brand new property at the start of the tenancy.
The Tenant acknowledged that the damages to the walls were due to moving items in the house such as the bed and furniture. They tried to wipe some marks off which came clean and they used paint from mitre 10 to paint the patches. They denied there being any holes to repair. They painted the areas with a similar colour to the rest of the walls. They considered they should not pay for anything.
In considering the evidence, I find the wall damage was more than wear and tear because the Tenants attempted to repair the damage in a different paint colour. When asked if they had reported these damages to the Landlord, they stated no. Tenants are obliged to report any damages to the Landlord and it would have assisted because the correct paint colour could have been ascertained. In considering the evidence, I find the patch marks are more than wear and tear.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account 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. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The Landlord claimed for pest control due to a cockroach infestation which they discovered at the end of the tenancy. They provided a photograph of a dead cockroach on the stove top and an invoice that confirmed the date pest control attended the property. There was nothing in the invoice which confirmed there was a cockroach issue.
The Tenant noted that they had cleaned the stove top and removed the cockroach since the photograph was taken. They provided a photograph of a clean stove top in support.
In considering the evidence, I find the one photograph of the cockroach on the stove top and pest control report did not substantiate the need for pest control to attend. Had there been confirmation in the pest control report that there was an issue, this would have been more persuasive for their claim.
For these reasons, the claim for pest control is dismissed.
As the Landlord has been substantially successful with their application, name suppression is granted to the Landlord and the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee. As the Tenant has not been substantially successful, name suppression is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5467152 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5467152 — Property damage

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

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