What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4659811?

The tribunal order states: Melissa Cunis and Joseph Fisher to pay Property Brokers Wairarapa Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4659811?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Dining: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Hallway: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4659811?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4659811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9730568-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4659811?

The tribunal order states: Melissa Cunis and Joseph Fisher to pay Property Brokers Wairarapa Limited

How much money was awarded in case 4659811?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Bedroom Door: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Dining: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Hallway: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4659811?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4659811?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9730568-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Bryan Lane, Te Aroha, Te Aroha 3320, House Tenancy Tribunal Case 4659811 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4659811 — net $820.44 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
Repairs: bedroom door	$300.00	Repairs: bedroom door
Repairs: hallway	$250.00	Repairs: hallway
Repairs: dining	$250.00	Repairs: dining
Net award	$820.44
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$820.44

Order

Melissa Cunis and Joseph Fisher to pay Property Brokers Wairarapa Limited Vicki Black $820.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6494880-022) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Wairarapa Limited Vicki Black: $820.44 Melissa Cunis and Joseph Fisher: $1,579.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants appeared by telephone and the property manager, Ms Black appeared in person.
The tenancy ended on 21 September 2023 after the tenant gave notice.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment.
The landlord has filed a cross application for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord returned the rent credit to the tenants.
The other claims are dismissed. Was there a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
Melissa Cunis and Joseph Fisher claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants said that the property owner drove past premises and took photos and videos. No times or dates of these incidents, or other evidence was provided supporting this claim.
The tenants said that while they were on holiday a neighbour informed them that the landlord had come to the premises and looked into the windows.
The landlord confirmed that she went to the premises as she had a vacant premises that she was going to offer to the tenants after their tenancy ended. She knocked on the door and a neighbour told her that the tenants were on holiday, so she left.
The landlord confirmed that she had only been in the premises once, on 4 August 2023, as part of a routine inspection.
There was not enough evidence provided to establish the claim. I do not find they have committed an unlawful act and this claim is dismissed.

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.
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 master bedroom door was damaged, there was a gouge in the hallway wall and a dent in the dining room wall.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant said that the bedroom door was damaged moving furniture, but they failed to inform the landlord of this as required by section 40(1)(d) RTA, preferring to try to fix it themselves. The tenants did not know what caused the other damages claimed.
I find that the tenants have not disproved liability and that these are careless damages.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The premises were a brand-new house at the start of the tenancy and the tenancy was for a short period of time. I have taken into account minor 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 invoice for repairs did not itemises materials, travel, an hourly charge out rate, or time taken on each repair, so some adjustment of the award has been made.
Because Property Brokers Wairarapa Limited has wholly succeeded with their claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4659811 — net $820.44 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
Repairs: bedroom door	$300.00	Repairs: bedroom door
Repairs: hallway	$250.00	Repairs: hallway
Repairs: dining	$250.00	Repairs: dining
Net award	$820.44
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$820.44

Order

Melissa Cunis and Joseph Fisher to pay Property Brokers Wairarapa Limited Vicki Black $820.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6494880-022) immediately apportioned as follows: Property Brokers Wairarapa Limited Vicki Black: $820.44 Melissa Cunis and Joseph Fisher: $1,579.56

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants appeared by telephone and the property manager, Ms Black appeared in person.
The tenancy ended on 21 September 2023 after the tenant gave notice.
The tenant applied for exemplary damages for a breach of quiet enjoyment.
The landlord has filed a cross application for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord returned the rent credit to the tenants.
The other claims are dismissed. Was there a breach of the tenants’ quiet enjoyment?
Melissa Cunis and Joseph Fisher claims the landlord has harassed them.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenants said that the property owner drove past premises and took photos and videos. No times or dates of these incidents, or other evidence was provided supporting this claim.
The tenants said that while they were on holiday a neighbour informed them that the landlord had come to the premises and looked into the windows.
The landlord confirmed that she went to the premises as she had a vacant premises that she was going to offer to the tenants after their tenancy ended. She knocked on the door and a neighbour told her that the tenants were on holiday, so she left.
The landlord confirmed that she had only been in the premises once, on 4 August 2023, as part of a routine inspection.
There was not enough evidence provided to establish the claim. I do not find they have committed an unlawful act and this claim is dismissed.

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.
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 master bedroom door was damaged, there was a gouge in the hallway wall and a dent in the dining room wall.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The tenant said that the bedroom door was damaged moving furniture, but they failed to inform the landlord of this as required by section 40(1)(d) RTA, preferring to try to fix it themselves. The tenants did not know what caused the other damages claimed.
I find that the tenants have not disproved liability and that these are careless damages.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The premises were a brand-new house at the start of the tenancy and the tenancy was for a short period of time. I have taken into account minor 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 invoice for repairs did not itemises materials, travel, an hourly charge out rate, or time taken on each repair, so some adjustment of the award has been made.
Because Property Brokers Wairarapa Limited has wholly succeeded with their claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4659811 — Property damage at 4 Bryan Lane, Te Aroha, Te Aroha 3320, House

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4659811 — Property damage at 4 Bryan Lane, Te Aroha, Te Aroha 3320, House

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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