What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615211?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4615211?

Balance Of Invoices: $1,796.58 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615211?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9211112-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615211?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4615211?

Balance Of Invoices: $1,796.58 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615211?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615211?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9211112-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

18A Filmer Place, Melville, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4615211 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4615211 — net $207.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
balance of invoices	$1,796.58	balance of invoices
insurance excess	$250.00	insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$207.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$207.02

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Lorelle Joan White must pay Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals as Agent For Serenity Family Investments Limited $207.02 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,860.00 (6065153-009) to Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals as Agent For Serenity Family Investments Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant bought two support people and a witness, Mr Fergus.
The tenancy began on 18 June 2021.The tenant has given notice ending the tenancy on 16 August 2023.
The landlord has applied for the agreed balance of invoices to be paid. These are for a septic tank pump and a damaged door.
The landlord also sought reimbursement for the replacement of a second septic tank pump and associated costs.
The application for termination is withdrawn.

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: The pump for the septic tank was broken.
The damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.

Did the tenant carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage?

The premises address is number 18A, and is located behind property number
The section is low lying and a septic tank was installed, with a pump, in order to supposedly remove waste to the council system. There was no confirmed date when this was installed.
In October 2021 the pump for the septic tank stopped working and was replaced. The tenant agreed to reimburse the landlord for the replacement at a rate of $10.00 per week This amount has recently been increased to $15.00. A door was damaged during the tenancy, and the tenant agreed to also pay this off. The remaining balance of these costs as at the date of the hearing is $1796.58. This was not disputed by the tenant, and is awarded as claimed.
In April 2023 the second septic pump stopped working and photographs and reports provided by the landlord show non-biodegradable items were caught in the pump and in the septic tank causing the motor to jam up and burn out. An itemised invoice report from O’Donoghue Plumbing, dated 3 October, supported this.
The Owner filed a claim with their insurance company on 4 May 2023. The landlord provided a copy of the claim and insurance schedule. The landlord said that the insurance excess as stated on the tenancy agreement is $250.00 and they did not know when they would hear about the insurance companies decision.
The tenant disputed that they had caused the blockage. The claim mentioned that wet wipes flushed into the tank had contributed to the problem. The tenant said that they did not flush wipes. They have a baby but had only been home after the birth for 5 days when the pump broke.
The tenant bought a witness, Mr Fergus, who supplied photos of the premises flooding and drains that allowed garden and other material to flow into and through the pump when it flooded. He suggested that this debris could damage the pump and there was no capacity to filter out the rubbish before it reached the pump.
Mr Fergus also raised that the lid to the pump was not fixed, and water could enter and damage the pump during heavy rain and flooding demonstrated in the photos.
He provided a plan form the council showing two properties 18 and 18A side by side and said that he had verbal discussion with council staff who said it looked like both properties wastewater went through the tank and was pumped to the sewerage system. No written or expert reports were available.
A plumber from ‘R.B. Plumbing and drainage’ wrote that the wastewater system used was not standard and an operation manual should be provided to the occupier to inform them how to use it.
The consent plan shows the wastewater tank located between both buildings. It was the tenant’s suggestion that both premises used the waste water pump to deliver the waste to the city council system.
The landlord said that the tenants premises,18A, was constructed after number 18 and that was when the tank was installed due to the low lying area. It was his claim that number 18A was the only premises using the pump.
The photos of the repair of the pump show material like items wrapped around the pump and other objects that did not look like wood from the garden or other organic substances.
The standard of proof required by the Tenancy Tribunal is ‘on the balance of probabilities.’ This means that, that did the applicant establish that it was more likely than not that their version of events occurred. Evidence provided helps establish claims.
Once a landlord establishes that damage is caused during a tenancy and it is more than fair wear and tear it the tenants responsibility to prove that they did not intentionally or carelessly cause the damage.
I do not fine that the damage to the pump was intentional.
Insurance for the premises is the responsibility of the landlord and the tenant is required to be informed of the insurance held and excess that is relevant as part of a written tenancy agreement. See section 13A(2),RTA. A tenant’s liability is limited to the value of the landlord’s insurance excess when the premises are insured and covered by the insurance and the damage is classed as careless.
Based on the evidence provided by the landlord I find that the pump was carelessly damaged by the tenant. Ms White and her witness raised important points but they were not substantiated by evidence, expert advice or written reports. The photographs provided of the damaged pump showed material and inorganic matter present.
There was not enough evidence supplied to establish that the pump connected to and was used by both premises. The tenant has not disproved liability for this.
My concern as discussed at the hearing is that this matter is still part of an insurance claim. Invoices for the repair and replacement have been claimed but there has been no decision made. This could result in double dipping by the landlord. However, since I have found that the tenant is liable for careless damage the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent or the insurance excess to be paid.
The landlord stated that this was $250.00 as recorded in the tenancy agreement, and I find that the tenant is liable for this.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals As Agent For Serenity Family Investments Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4615211 — net $207.02 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
balance of invoices	$1,796.58	balance of invoices
insurance excess	$250.00	insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$207.02
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$207.02

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Lorelle Joan White must pay Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals as Agent For Serenity Family Investments Limited $207.02 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,860.00 (6065153-009) to Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals as Agent For Serenity Family Investments Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant bought two support people and a witness, Mr Fergus.
The tenancy began on 18 June 2021.The tenant has given notice ending the tenancy on 16 August 2023.
The landlord has applied for the agreed balance of invoices to be paid. These are for a septic tank pump and a damaged door.
The landlord also sought reimbursement for the replacement of a second septic tank pump and associated costs.
The application for termination is withdrawn.

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: The pump for the septic tank was broken.
The damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.

Did the tenant carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage?

The premises address is number 18A, and is located behind property number
The section is low lying and a septic tank was installed, with a pump, in order to supposedly remove waste to the council system. There was no confirmed date when this was installed.
In October 2021 the pump for the septic tank stopped working and was replaced. The tenant agreed to reimburse the landlord for the replacement at a rate of $10.00 per week This amount has recently been increased to $15.00. A door was damaged during the tenancy, and the tenant agreed to also pay this off. The remaining balance of these costs as at the date of the hearing is $1796.58. This was not disputed by the tenant, and is awarded as claimed.
In April 2023 the second septic pump stopped working and photographs and reports provided by the landlord show non-biodegradable items were caught in the pump and in the septic tank causing the motor to jam up and burn out. An itemised invoice report from O’Donoghue Plumbing, dated 3 October, supported this.
The Owner filed a claim with their insurance company on 4 May 2023. The landlord provided a copy of the claim and insurance schedule. The landlord said that the insurance excess as stated on the tenancy agreement is $250.00 and they did not know when they would hear about the insurance companies decision.
The tenant disputed that they had caused the blockage. The claim mentioned that wet wipes flushed into the tank had contributed to the problem. The tenant said that they did not flush wipes. They have a baby but had only been home after the birth for 5 days when the pump broke.
The tenant bought a witness, Mr Fergus, who supplied photos of the premises flooding and drains that allowed garden and other material to flow into and through the pump when it flooded. He suggested that this debris could damage the pump and there was no capacity to filter out the rubbish before it reached the pump.
Mr Fergus also raised that the lid to the pump was not fixed, and water could enter and damage the pump during heavy rain and flooding demonstrated in the photos.
He provided a plan form the council showing two properties 18 and 18A side by side and said that he had verbal discussion with council staff who said it looked like both properties wastewater went through the tank and was pumped to the sewerage system. No written or expert reports were available.
A plumber from ‘R.B. Plumbing and drainage’ wrote that the wastewater system used was not standard and an operation manual should be provided to the occupier to inform them how to use it.
The consent plan shows the wastewater tank located between both buildings. It was the tenant’s suggestion that both premises used the waste water pump to deliver the waste to the city council system.
The landlord said that the tenants premises,18A, was constructed after number 18 and that was when the tank was installed due to the low lying area. It was his claim that number 18A was the only premises using the pump.
The photos of the repair of the pump show material like items wrapped around the pump and other objects that did not look like wood from the garden or other organic substances.
The standard of proof required by the Tenancy Tribunal is ‘on the balance of probabilities.’ This means that, that did the applicant establish that it was more likely than not that their version of events occurred. Evidence provided helps establish claims.
Once a landlord establishes that damage is caused during a tenancy and it is more than fair wear and tear it the tenants responsibility to prove that they did not intentionally or carelessly cause the damage.
I do not fine that the damage to the pump was intentional.
Insurance for the premises is the responsibility of the landlord and the tenant is required to be informed of the insurance held and excess that is relevant as part of a written tenancy agreement. See section 13A(2),RTA. A tenant’s liability is limited to the value of the landlord’s insurance excess when the premises are insured and covered by the insurance and the damage is classed as careless.
Based on the evidence provided by the landlord I find that the pump was carelessly damaged by the tenant. Ms White and her witness raised important points but they were not substantiated by evidence, expert advice or written reports. The photographs provided of the damaged pump showed material and inorganic matter present.
There was not enough evidence supplied to establish that the pump connected to and was used by both premises. The tenant has not disproved liability for this.
My concern as discussed at the hearing is that this matter is still part of an insurance claim. Invoices for the repair and replacement have been claimed but there has been no decision made. This could result in double dipping by the landlord. However, since I have found that the tenant is liable for careless damage the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent or the insurance excess to be paid.
The landlord stated that this was $250.00 as recorded in the tenancy agreement, and I find that the tenant is liable for this.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Monarch Realty Limited T/A Harcourts Hamilton Rentals As Agent For Serenity Family Investments Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615211 — Property damage at 18A Filmer Place, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615211 — Property damage at 18A Filmer Place, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions