What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4608750?

The tribunal order states: Hurihanga Ricky-Kauri Paraha to pay Gurdial Singh $808.52 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4608750?

Property Damage: $58.82 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608750?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9575695-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4608750?

The tribunal order states: Hurihanga Ricky-Kauri Paraha to pay Gurdial Singh $808.52 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4608750?

Property Damage: $58.82 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4608750?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4608750?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9575695-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

55D Black Road, Paengaroa, Paengaroa 3189 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4608750 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4608750 — net $808.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8.6.23	$750.00	Rent arrears to 8.6.23
Repairs to hallway cupboard hinge	$58.82	Repairs to hallway cupboard hinge
Net award	$808.52
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$808.52

Order

Hurihanga Ricky-Kauri Paraha to pay Gurdial Singh $808.52 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (3332112-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Gurdial Singh: $808.52 Hurihanga Ricky-Kauri Paraha: $2,191.18
The tenant’s application for reimbursement of expenses is dismissed.
All other of the landlord’s applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant Mr Paraha had his mother present as a support person.
The landlord Mr Singh was represented by his daughter Ramandeep Kaur who also effectively managed the tenancy and speaks English well.
A Punjabi interpreter Ms Ahuja translated for Mr Singh.
On 18 June 2023 the tenant applied to the tribunal for refund of the bond and compensation for reimbursement of expenses fixing the glass shower door.
On 26 July 2023 the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation for repairs, and refund of the bond. Tenant’s Claim Is the tenant entitled to reimbursement of the expenses paid to repair the glass shower door?
Mr Paraha says while he was at work a family member slipped in the shower, grabbed hold of the door and it came away from its hinges and fell. The glass door remained intact but the railing panel had smashed. Because he thought it was their fault he arranged for a glass door company to repair it and paid for it. He was told by the Glass Guys, the repair company, that the shower had been installed poorly. So he now seeks that the landlord compensate him the costs paid of $458.52.
Section 45(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a landlord must compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where— a. The state of disrepair did not arise as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant; and b. The state of disrepair is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and c. the tenant gave the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
The sequence of events is important. On 2 June 2023 the tenant contacted Glass Guys and they came to the property on 6 June 2023 to repair the shower door. On 8 June 2023 the tenant notified the landlord just prior to meeting for the final inspection of the premises, that the shower door had fallen off.
The Glass Guys found that: Upon our assessment we have noticed that the sidelite panel was not installed with anywhere near enough silicone and the wedge that was used was an external glazing wedge and not a shower wedge. As a result, when your family member had a fall the sidelite panel came out of the wall along with the wedge and the brace fell and broke.”
The landlord’s contractor who also installed the glass shower door in 2019, commented on the problem but did not visit the premises because they were not given the opportunity to do so before it was repaired by the tenant’s contractor. They incorrectly believed the glass itself had broken and their comments focused on never having had one of the glass shower doors they had installed break. They say: “The installer that installed your shower has over 15 years of experience installing showers. We use the best quality Sealant... and he typically would use 1-2 300ml tubes per install.”
Based on the available evidence I think it more likely the shower door fell out as a result of faulty installation in accordance with the views of Glass Guys. However the tenant is not entitled to reimbursement of his expenses because the tenant did not notify the landlord of the problem before he went ahead and had it repaired. This is one of the requirements for reimbursement of expenses. See section 45(1)(d) RTA in paragraph 8 above. This claim is dismissed. Landlord’s Claims

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 8 June 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove one week’s rent owing at the end of the tenancy. Mr Paraha was confused about his liability because of paying rent one week in advance but after receipt of the rent statement and an explanation he accepts it is owed. I make an order accordingly.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for repairs to the premises: hallway cupboard door, broken window in door, fence gate latch, window hinge, and missing glazing beading around window.
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, section 49B RTA applies. If it is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. In this case the insurance excess is $400, and 4 weeks rent is $3,000.00 so the tenant’s liability is limited to $400.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' 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.
The landlord is required to provide a certain amount of information in the tenancy agreement but neither party provided a copy of it. It is accepted that the insurance excess amount was disclosed in the tenancy agreement. The full extent of the policy is unknown.
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.
The landlord did not complete a property condition report or take photos of the condition at the beginning of the tenancy. One quote was provided for the repairs but none of the work has been carried out. The contractor has not visited the premises and inspected the repairs needed before completing the quote. New tenants live in the premises.
Hallway cupboard door hinge: The landlord says the screw of a door hinge had been removed. The tenant found a replacement screw but was unable to install it, he says because of the thick paint on the door. He says the cupboard was rarely used because there was plenty of storage in the house but accepts this was not damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.
Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy and is likely to have been caused carelessly.
I am concerned that no actual loss has been incurred because the work has not been carried out with new tenants living there. The amount quoted of $180 + GST also seems excessive for the work required with no breakdown of labour and materials provided. I therefore award what I consider to be reasonable compensation of $50 + GST, totalling $58.82.
Window crack: The landlord claims $270 + GST to replace the cracked window pane in the door. The tenant says a small crack existed in the window of the door at the beginning of the tenancy which has worsened over the 9 month long tenancy.
I find it more likely that there was a pre-existing crack to this window, so although at the final inspection the tenant accepted responsibility, I do not find him liable. Given the door was the main door used for entry and exit, a pre- existing crack is likely to have worsened. The landlord has not proved the claim as required. This claim is dismissed.
Front gate latch: The landlord claims $210 + GST to repair the broken gate latch affixed to the metal gate. They say the latch was installed in 2019 when they carried out renovations on the property.
The lack of any evidence of the condition of the latch at the beginning of the tenancy in September 2022 means the landlord has not proved the damage occurred during the tenancy. I think it more likely that the latch’s condition is wear and tear over a 4 year period being a relatively cheap product, it’s quality being inferior to that of the strong metal gate. This claim is therefore dismissed.
Window hinge: The landlord claims $240 + GST for a broken pivot on the hinge on one side of the office window.
I think it more likely that this was caused by wear and tear of the aluminium joinery over a period of years. This claim fails.
Beading of window glazing missing: The landlord claims $310 + GST for missing beading around part of a master bedroom window. The tenant believes the beading had come away partially at the start of the tenancy.
The lack of any precondition report and photos means the landlord has not proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Filing fees
Because both parties have only been partially successful with their applications, the filing fees are not reimbursed. See section 102(4)(b) RTA. Suppression
The tenant seeks suppression of his name and identifying details. I am not satisfied it is justified in this case. He has not been wholly or substantially successful with his claim. So no order is made. See section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4608750 — net $808.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8.6.23	$750.00	Rent arrears to 8.6.23
Repairs to hallway cupboard hinge	$58.82	Repairs to hallway cupboard hinge
Net award	$808.52
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$808.52

Order

Hurihanga Ricky-Kauri Paraha to pay Gurdial Singh $808.52 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (3332112-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Gurdial Singh: $808.52 Hurihanga Ricky-Kauri Paraha: $2,191.18
The tenant’s application for reimbursement of expenses is dismissed.
All other of the landlord’s applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant Mr Paraha had his mother present as a support person.
The landlord Mr Singh was represented by his daughter Ramandeep Kaur who also effectively managed the tenancy and speaks English well.
A Punjabi interpreter Ms Ahuja translated for Mr Singh.
On 18 June 2023 the tenant applied to the tribunal for refund of the bond and compensation for reimbursement of expenses fixing the glass shower door.
On 26 July 2023 the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation for repairs, and refund of the bond. Tenant’s Claim Is the tenant entitled to reimbursement of the expenses paid to repair the glass shower door?
Mr Paraha says while he was at work a family member slipped in the shower, grabbed hold of the door and it came away from its hinges and fell. The glass door remained intact but the railing panel had smashed. Because he thought it was their fault he arranged for a glass door company to repair it and paid for it. He was told by the Glass Guys, the repair company, that the shower had been installed poorly. So he now seeks that the landlord compensate him the costs paid of $458.52.
Section 45(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a landlord must compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where— a. The state of disrepair did not arise as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant; and b. The state of disrepair is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and c. the tenant gave the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
The sequence of events is important. On 2 June 2023 the tenant contacted Glass Guys and they came to the property on 6 June 2023 to repair the shower door. On 8 June 2023 the tenant notified the landlord just prior to meeting for the final inspection of the premises, that the shower door had fallen off.
The Glass Guys found that: Upon our assessment we have noticed that the sidelite panel was not installed with anywhere near enough silicone and the wedge that was used was an external glazing wedge and not a shower wedge. As a result, when your family member had a fall the sidelite panel came out of the wall along with the wedge and the brace fell and broke.”
The landlord’s contractor who also installed the glass shower door in 2019, commented on the problem but did not visit the premises because they were not given the opportunity to do so before it was repaired by the tenant’s contractor. They incorrectly believed the glass itself had broken and their comments focused on never having had one of the glass shower doors they had installed break. They say: “The installer that installed your shower has over 15 years of experience installing showers. We use the best quality Sealant... and he typically would use 1-2 300ml tubes per install.”
Based on the available evidence I think it more likely the shower door fell out as a result of faulty installation in accordance with the views of Glass Guys. However the tenant is not entitled to reimbursement of his expenses because the tenant did not notify the landlord of the problem before he went ahead and had it repaired. This is one of the requirements for reimbursement of expenses. See section 45(1)(d) RTA in paragraph 8 above. This claim is dismissed. Landlord’s Claims

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 8 June 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove one week’s rent owing at the end of the tenancy. Mr Paraha was confused about his liability because of paying rent one week in advance but after receipt of the rent statement and an explanation he accepts it is owed. I make an order accordingly.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for repairs to the premises: hallway cupboard door, broken window in door, fence gate latch, window hinge, and missing glazing beading around window.
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, section 49B RTA applies. If it is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent. See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. In this case the insurance excess is $400, and 4 weeks rent is $3,000.00 so the tenant’s liability is limited to $400.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' 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.
The landlord is required to provide a certain amount of information in the tenancy agreement but neither party provided a copy of it. It is accepted that the insurance excess amount was disclosed in the tenancy agreement. The full extent of the policy is unknown.
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.
The landlord did not complete a property condition report or take photos of the condition at the beginning of the tenancy. One quote was provided for the repairs but none of the work has been carried out. The contractor has not visited the premises and inspected the repairs needed before completing the quote. New tenants live in the premises.
Hallway cupboard door hinge: The landlord says the screw of a door hinge had been removed. The tenant found a replacement screw but was unable to install it, he says because of the thick paint on the door. He says the cupboard was rarely used because there was plenty of storage in the house but accepts this was not damaged at the beginning of the tenancy.
Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied this damage occurred during the tenancy and is likely to have been caused carelessly.
I am concerned that no actual loss has been incurred because the work has not been carried out with new tenants living there. The amount quoted of $180 + GST also seems excessive for the work required with no breakdown of labour and materials provided. I therefore award what I consider to be reasonable compensation of $50 + GST, totalling $58.82.
Window crack: The landlord claims $270 + GST to replace the cracked window pane in the door. The tenant says a small crack existed in the window of the door at the beginning of the tenancy which has worsened over the 9 month long tenancy.
I find it more likely that there was a pre-existing crack to this window, so although at the final inspection the tenant accepted responsibility, I do not find him liable. Given the door was the main door used for entry and exit, a pre- existing crack is likely to have worsened. The landlord has not proved the claim as required. This claim is dismissed.
Front gate latch: The landlord claims $210 + GST to repair the broken gate latch affixed to the metal gate. They say the latch was installed in 2019 when they carried out renovations on the property.
The lack of any evidence of the condition of the latch at the beginning of the tenancy in September 2022 means the landlord has not proved the damage occurred during the tenancy. I think it more likely that the latch’s condition is wear and tear over a 4 year period being a relatively cheap product, it’s quality being inferior to that of the strong metal gate. This claim is therefore dismissed.
Window hinge: The landlord claims $240 + GST for a broken pivot on the hinge on one side of the office window.
I think it more likely that this was caused by wear and tear of the aluminium joinery over a period of years. This claim fails.
Beading of window glazing missing: The landlord claims $310 + GST for missing beading around part of a master bedroom window. The tenant believes the beading had come away partially at the start of the tenancy.
The lack of any precondition report and photos means the landlord has not proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy. This claim is dismissed. Filing fees
Because both parties have only been partially successful with their applications, the filing fees are not reimbursed. See section 102(4)(b) RTA. Suppression
The tenant seeks suppression of his name and identifying details. I am not satisfied it is justified in this case. He has not been wholly or substantially successful with his claim. So no order is made. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4608750 — Rent arrears at 55D Black Road, Paengaroa, Paengaroa 3189

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4608750 — Rent arrears at 55D Black Road, Paengaroa, Paengaroa 3189

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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 rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions