What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4468367?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4468367?

Carpet: Compensation: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,238.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4468367?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4468367?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9352166-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4468367?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4468367?

Carpet: Compensation: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $2,238.49 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4468367?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4468367?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9352166-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Funnell Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4468367 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4468367 — net $6,308.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates (12.6.2021 to 28.12.2022	$2,238.49	Water rates (12.6.2021 to 28.12.2022
Oven replacement	$350.00	Oven replacement
Kitchen cabinet replacement (x3	$1,100.00	Kitchen cabinet replacement (x3
Carpet: compensation	$500.00	Carpet: compensation
Repairs to walls	$2,100.00	Repairs to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,308.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,308.93

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Peatisymerilutene Maalaelu must pay Kai Guo $6,308.93 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. While notified, the tenant did not attend, and the hearing proceeded.
This is the second part of an earlier hearing, which was adjourned part-heard for further evidence to be produced by the landlord, since the landlord’s evidence was incomplete. The balance of the claim, for water charges and compensation for tenant damage, is considered below. The landlord has confirmed receiving the bond.

How much is owed for water charges?

Under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) a tenant is responsible for all outgoings for the premises exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises, including electricity, gas, telephone and internet. A tenant is also liable for water charges where a water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. However, a tenant is not liable to pay fixed water charges as they are payable regardless of the tenant’s occupation.
In the decision of Woollams v Simpson 1 the District Court held that there is an implied term in a tenancy agreement for the landlord to provide water invoices to a tenant at regular intervals for payment. Therefore, there is an obligation on the landlord to supply water accounts promptly.
In this case, the tenancy ended on 28 December 2022. The landlord has now provided evidence of the water rates invoices for the relevant period. He has calculated the water charges payable by the tenant and has given oral evidence confirming that only these charges for which the tenant is liable are being claimed. Having viewed the invoices, the total claimed is consistent with the Watercare invoices provided. The landlord also stated that the tenant was made aware of the amounts payable, as they became due, during the course of the tenancy.
The amount claimed is $2,238.49 and covers the period from the start of the tenancy in June 2021 up to the end, on 28 December 2022. In the absence of contrary evidence from the tenant, the amount claimed by the landlord for water charges is awarded. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA. 1 DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the 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.
In this case, the landlord became aware of the damage after August 2019, therefore, the amended provisions will apply.
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) of the 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) of the 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) of the RTA.
The landlord advises that he is insured for tenant damage and the insurance excess is $550.00. The rent for this premises is $600.00 per week.
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) of the 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.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

From the photographic, oral and documentary evidence produced by the landlord (including relevant invoices), I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the oven requiring replacement with a second-hand oven ($350.00) b. Kitchen cabinetry: three kitchen cabinets had to be replaced, as they had been removed ($1,100.00) c. Damage to multiple walls throughout the house. Some of this damage may be intentional, while other damage is likely to be the result of careless use. The damage included pen marks and torn wallpaper. The landlord states that the most cost-effective way to repair the damage was to paint rather than re-wallpaper the rooms. The amount claimed of $2,100.00 is awarded. Even if most of this damage was careless damage, the amount awarded is less than the cap in s.49B. d. Damage to carpet: This is discussed below.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. 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 no longer claims the cost of repairing the shower door handle. Carpet damage
The landlord provided photographic evidence of the staining of the carpet and seeks the cost of replacing the carpet in the lounge and one bedroom. An invoice for $1,500.00 from Beck Renovation has been produced. The landlord states that the person replacing the carpet advised that the stains could not be removed. The carpet was new when the tenant moved in.
Overall, while accepting the carpet was stained, the photographic evidence does not establish that replacement of the carpet was warranted in this case. There is no supporting evidence to show that the stains could not be removed with professional carpet cleaning, so it is unclear whether the extent of the staining was such that the carpet needed to be replaced.
Taking into account the nature and extent of the damage, and accepting that the landlord ought to be compensated, the amount of $500.00 is awarded. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been substantially successful, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4468367 — net $6,308.93 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates (12.6.2021 to 28.12.2022	$2,238.49	Water rates (12.6.2021 to 28.12.2022
Oven replacement	$350.00	Oven replacement
Kitchen cabinet replacement (x3	$1,100.00	Kitchen cabinet replacement (x3
Carpet: compensation	$500.00	Carpet: compensation
Repairs to walls	$2,100.00	Repairs to walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,308.93
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,308.93

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Peatisymerilutene Maalaelu must pay Kai Guo $6,308.93 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. While notified, the tenant did not attend, and the hearing proceeded.
This is the second part of an earlier hearing, which was adjourned part-heard for further evidence to be produced by the landlord, since the landlord’s evidence was incomplete. The balance of the claim, for water charges and compensation for tenant damage, is considered below. The landlord has confirmed receiving the bond.

How much is owed for water charges?

Under the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) a tenant is responsible for all outgoings for the premises exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises, including electricity, gas, telephone and internet. A tenant is also liable for water charges where a water supplier charges for water provided to the premises on the basis of consumption. However, a tenant is not liable to pay fixed water charges as they are payable regardless of the tenant’s occupation.
In the decision of Woollams v Simpson 1 the District Court held that there is an implied term in a tenancy agreement for the landlord to provide water invoices to a tenant at regular intervals for payment. Therefore, there is an obligation on the landlord to supply water accounts promptly.
In this case, the tenancy ended on 28 December 2022. The landlord has now provided evidence of the water rates invoices for the relevant period. He has calculated the water charges payable by the tenant and has given oral evidence confirming that only these charges for which the tenant is liable are being claimed. Having viewed the invoices, the total claimed is consistent with the Watercare invoices provided. The landlord also stated that the tenant was made aware of the amounts payable, as they became due, during the course of the tenancy.
The amount claimed is $2,238.49 and covers the period from the start of the tenancy in June 2021 up to the end, on 28 December 2022. In the absence of contrary evidence from the tenant, the amount claimed by the landlord for water charges is awarded. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA. 1 DC Auckland CIV-2005-004-1583
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the 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.
In this case, the landlord became aware of the damage after August 2019, therefore, the amended provisions will apply.
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) of the 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) of the 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) of the RTA.
The landlord advises that he is insured for tenant damage and the insurance excess is $550.00. The rent for this premises is $600.00 per week.
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) of the 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.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

From the photographic, oral and documentary evidence produced by the landlord (including relevant invoices), I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Damage to the oven requiring replacement with a second-hand oven ($350.00) b. Kitchen cabinetry: three kitchen cabinets had to be replaced, as they had been removed ($1,100.00) c. Damage to multiple walls throughout the house. Some of this damage may be intentional, while other damage is likely to be the result of careless use. The damage included pen marks and torn wallpaper. The landlord states that the most cost-effective way to repair the damage was to paint rather than re-wallpaper the rooms. The amount claimed of $2,100.00 is awarded. Even if most of this damage was careless damage, the amount awarded is less than the cap in s.49B. d. Damage to carpet: This is discussed below.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. 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 no longer claims the cost of repairing the shower door handle. Carpet damage
The landlord provided photographic evidence of the staining of the carpet and seeks the cost of replacing the carpet in the lounge and one bedroom. An invoice for $1,500.00 from Beck Renovation has been produced. The landlord states that the person replacing the carpet advised that the stains could not be removed. The carpet was new when the tenant moved in.
Overall, while accepting the carpet was stained, the photographic evidence does not establish that replacement of the carpet was warranted in this case. There is no supporting evidence to show that the stains could not be removed with professional carpet cleaning, so it is unclear whether the extent of the staining was such that the carpet needed to be replaced.
Taking into account the nature and extent of the damage, and accepting that the landlord ought to be compensated, the amount of $500.00 is awarded. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been substantially successful, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4468367 — Property damage at 7 Funnell Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4468367 — Property damage at 7 Funnell Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water charges?

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

How much is owed for water charges?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions