What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4647613?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4647613?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Benchtop: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $86.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4647613?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4647613?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9533594-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4647613?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4647613?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Benchtop: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $86.53 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4647613?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4647613?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9533594-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

41 Charlbury Drive, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4647613 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4647613 — net $406.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$86.53	Water rates
Repairs: Wall and Windowsill repair	$149.50	Repairs: Wall and Windowsill repair
Repairs: Kitchen benchtop	$150.00	Repairs: Kitchen benchtop
Net award	$406.47
Bond	$1,940.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$406.47

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Hedy Van Zyl and Shane Van Zyl to pay Xclusive Property Management Nz 2013 Limited - As Agent For P Casware & D Brooks $406.47 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,940.00 (6211158-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Xclusive Property Management Nz 2013 Limited - As Agent For P Casware & D Brooks: $406.47 Hedy Van Zyl and Shane Van Zyl: $1,533.53

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 8 May 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that this amount is payable by the tenants. The tenants also accept this claim.

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 landlord claims the following: a. Damage to bedroom carpet b. Damage to wall and windowsill c. Damage to kitchen benchtop d. Damage to lounge curtains e. Invoice for travel time obtaining quote for kitchen benchtop. Bedroom carpet:
The landlord claims that the bedroom carpet was stained. The limited photographic evidence provided during the hearing showed a very small orange stain approximately the size of a fifty-cent coin. The tenants dispute this claim. The carpet is approximately 5 years old, and the amount claimed by the landlord is a quote only. The carpet has not been replaced. The has been no insurance cover for this damage.
The landlord’s claim in respect of the carpet damage is dismissed. The landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm the condition of the carpet at the time the tenants moved into the property and therefore I cannot be satisfied that the tenants should be held responsible for this. Damage to wall and windowsill:
The tenants accept this claim and therefore the claim is allowed. Kitchen benchtop:
The tenants dispute this claim. Photographic evidence was provided by the landlord during the hearing which shows damage to the benchtop on the leading edge. There was also a mark on the top of the bench.
The tenants accept the chip of the front of the benchtop. They stated that they were prepared to pay for a replacement strip. The landlord is claiming an amount equivalent to the insurance excess being $550.00. The benchtop is approximately 5 years old. There was no photographic evidence of the condition of the benchtop at the start of the tenancy. There was only an entry inspection checklist provided by the landlord.
Having considered the evidence provided in support I am not satisfied that the tenants should be held responsible for the amount claimed, especially without supporting evidence such as entry photographs of the entire property.
Having carefully considered the claim I will allow a reduced level of compensation towards the damage which the tenants accept. Lounge Curtains:
The landlord claims that the tenants have damaged the lounge curtains. Photographic evidence was provided by the landlord during the hearing which showed very small holes at the bottom of one of the lounge curtains. The curtains were behind a TV cabinet. The amount claimed by the landlord is an estimate. No formal quote was provided. There were also no entry photographs provided by the landlord confirming the condition of the curtains at the start of the tenancy. The tenants stated during the hearing that they had a pet rat which was always caged.
Based on the limited evidence provided I am not satisfied that the tenants are responsible for this claim. Accordingly, I must also dismiss this claim for the same reasons. Benchtop travel time and labour charge:
The landlord has provided an invoice for labour and mileage for the benchtop quote. Based on my earlier findings it is my view that the tenants should not be held responsible for damage where the evidence does not support the claim. I have allowed a small and fair contribution towards the damage which the tenants accept.
This claim is dismissed.
Because Xclusive Property Management Nz 2013 Limited - As Agent For P Casware & D Brooks has partially succeeded with the claim I will reimburse the filing fee.
Neither party has applied for suppression of name in respect of this application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4647613 — net $406.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates	$86.53	Water rates
Repairs: Wall and Windowsill repair	$149.50	Repairs: Wall and Windowsill repair
Repairs: Kitchen benchtop	$150.00	Repairs: Kitchen benchtop
Net award	$406.47
Bond	$1,940.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$406.47

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Hedy Van Zyl and Shane Van Zyl to pay Xclusive Property Management Nz 2013 Limited - As Agent For P Casware & D Brooks $406.47 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,940.00 (6211158-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Xclusive Property Management Nz 2013 Limited - As Agent For P Casware & D Brooks: $406.47 Hedy Van Zyl and Shane Van Zyl: $1,533.53

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 8 May 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that this amount is payable by the tenants. The tenants also accept this claim.

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 landlord claims the following: a. Damage to bedroom carpet b. Damage to wall and windowsill c. Damage to kitchen benchtop d. Damage to lounge curtains e. Invoice for travel time obtaining quote for kitchen benchtop. Bedroom carpet:
The landlord claims that the bedroom carpet was stained. The limited photographic evidence provided during the hearing showed a very small orange stain approximately the size of a fifty-cent coin. The tenants dispute this claim. The carpet is approximately 5 years old, and the amount claimed by the landlord is a quote only. The carpet has not been replaced. The has been no insurance cover for this damage.
The landlord’s claim in respect of the carpet damage is dismissed. The landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm the condition of the carpet at the time the tenants moved into the property and therefore I cannot be satisfied that the tenants should be held responsible for this. Damage to wall and windowsill:
The tenants accept this claim and therefore the claim is allowed. Kitchen benchtop:
The tenants dispute this claim. Photographic evidence was provided by the landlord during the hearing which shows damage to the benchtop on the leading edge. There was also a mark on the top of the bench.
The tenants accept the chip of the front of the benchtop. They stated that they were prepared to pay for a replacement strip. The landlord is claiming an amount equivalent to the insurance excess being $550.00. The benchtop is approximately 5 years old. There was no photographic evidence of the condition of the benchtop at the start of the tenancy. There was only an entry inspection checklist provided by the landlord.
Having considered the evidence provided in support I am not satisfied that the tenants should be held responsible for the amount claimed, especially without supporting evidence such as entry photographs of the entire property.
Having carefully considered the claim I will allow a reduced level of compensation towards the damage which the tenants accept. Lounge Curtains:
The landlord claims that the tenants have damaged the lounge curtains. Photographic evidence was provided by the landlord during the hearing which showed very small holes at the bottom of one of the lounge curtains. The curtains were behind a TV cabinet. The amount claimed by the landlord is an estimate. No formal quote was provided. There were also no entry photographs provided by the landlord confirming the condition of the curtains at the start of the tenancy. The tenants stated during the hearing that they had a pet rat which was always caged.
Based on the limited evidence provided I am not satisfied that the tenants are responsible for this claim. Accordingly, I must also dismiss this claim for the same reasons. Benchtop travel time and labour charge:
The landlord has provided an invoice for labour and mileage for the benchtop quote. Based on my earlier findings it is my view that the tenants should not be held responsible for damage where the evidence does not support the claim. I have allowed a small and fair contribution towards the damage which the tenants accept.
This claim is dismissed.
Because Xclusive Property Management Nz 2013 Limited - As Agent For P Casware & D Brooks has partially succeeded with the claim I will reimburse the filing fee.
Neither party has applied for suppression of name in respect of this application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4647613 — Property damage at 41 Charlbury Drive, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4647613 — Property damage at 41 Charlbury Drive, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions