What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4609873?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4609873?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609873?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9218383-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4609873?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4609873?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4609873?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4609873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9218383-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

134 John F Kennedy Drive, Milson, Palmerston North 4414 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4609873 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Lincoln represented the landlord.

The tenant had applied for a work order in relation to having a bedroom window repaired. Circumstances had changed by the time of the hearing as the tenancy had ended and a work order was therefore no longer sought. Liability for who paid for window repair was still in dispute so it was agreed by both parties that the Tribunal would make the determination and also make consequent orders regarding the bond refund. Background

On Saturday evening, 10 June, the tenants pulled the curtains in the master bedroom and there was no damage to the window. On opening them in the morning the window was found to be broken with a round hole in the glass and a running crack. Some glass had fallen into the bedroom. They had not heard any noises over night and have no idea how it came to be broken.

The immediately tried to contact the landlord to advise of the damage. Since that time there has been a dispute about who was liable to repair the damage. The landlords claim it was the tenant’s responsibility, while the tenants claim they did not damage the window.

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 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.

Damage is careless where the conduct of a tenant is below the standard of care of a reasonable and prudent tenant.

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. Finding

While it is uncertain what did cause the hole in the window, I have listened to the evidence of the tenants that when they went to bed there was no hole in the window, but when they awoke it was there. There is no contrary evidence is no contrary evidence to suggest that they acted either carelessly or intentionally and therefore they have no liability for the cost of the repair.

The bond will be refunded to the tenants in full.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Lincoln represented the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Damage is careless where the conduct of a tenant is below the standard of care of a reasonable and prudent tenant.

The bond will be refunded to the tenants in full.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609873 — Property damage at 134 John F Kennedy Drive, Milson, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4609873 — Property damage at 134 John F Kennedy Drive, Milson, Palmerston North 4414

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions