What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4672709?

The tribunal order states: Vickie Helen Martin must immediately pay Village Estate Agents Limited, as

How much money was awarded in case 4672709?

Property Damage: $139.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $32.30 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4672709?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4672709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9471745-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4672709?

The tribunal order states: Vickie Helen Martin must immediately pay Village Estate Agents Limited, as

How much money was awarded in case 4672709?

Property Damage: $139.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $32.30 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4672709?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4672709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9471745-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 6, 24A Hamilton Road, Herne Bay, Auckland 1011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4672709 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4672709 — net $106.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$139.00		Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Rent arrears (for the period 26/05/2023 to 25/06/2023		$32.30	Rent arrears (for the period 26/05/2023 to 25/06/2023
Total award	$139.00	$32.30
Net award	$106.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$106.70

Both parties attended the hearing.

Rent arrears or overpayment of rent?

The landlord applied for rent arrears and the cost of replacing a damaged light fitting that it says was damaged due to the careless act of the tenant’s son and 2-year-old grandchild entering the premises without ensuring there was enough head space to clear the light fitting.

The tenant applied for overpayment of rent to be reimbursed to her and for reimbursement of the water rates she had paid for the period 15/05/2023 to 26/05/2023.

Both parties provided rent records, which were traversed extensively and during the hearing. The parties agreed at the hearing that these records prove the amount of rent owing to the tenant is $32.30. For clarity, this amount is comprised of the following: a. Overpayment of rent by the tenant of $1,574.87 (for the period 26/5/2023 to 26/5/2023); b. $1,803.45 credited to the tenant on 31/05/2023, 19/06/2023 and 21/07/2023, as a result of the premises being flooded and being uninhabitable from 26/05/2023 to 25/06/2023; c. The tenant being owed a power rebate of $124.59; d. The tenant being owed $135.71 of tenancy funds held by the agent for the landlord and not paid out at the end of the tenancy; and e. The tenant being owed an agreed rebate of $10.00 on the water bill for the period 15/05/2023 to 26/05/2023. This agreement was made during the hearing.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the light fitting?

The landlord sought reimbursement of the $139.00 to replace a light fitting in the entrance way to the premises that was broken when the tenant’s son entered the premises with his 2-year-old child on his shoulders.

The landlord argued that the damage was caused due to the tenant’s visitor’s careless action.

The tenant argued: a. The light fitting was too low for an entrance way and was therefore unsafe; and b. The damage caused was not foreseeable and was an accident for which she should not be held liable.

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.

After considering all the information provided by the parties, I find that the damage to the light fitting was caused by the carelessness of the tenant’s visitor, and not an accident, for which she is liable. The tenant’s son entered the premises with a 2-year-old child on his shoulders without checking that he had sufficient head space to clear the light fitting. It was reasonably foreseeable that the low light fitting could be knocked and that damage to the light fitting may result. His careless action led to the direct loss of $139.00 to the landlord, which is not recoverable by its insurance. I am satisfied that given the age and condition of the light fitting, this amount returns the landlord to the position it would have been in but for the careless action that caused the loss.

The amount ordered has been proven by a receipt from Lighting Plus. Filing fee

Because neither Village Estate Agents Limited, as Agent for Katie Lyall, or Vickie Helen Martin have been wholly or substantially successful in their claims, I decline both applications for reimbursement the filing fees. In all the circumstances it is fair for the costs to lay where they fall.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4672709 — net $106.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$139.00		Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Rent arrears (for the period 26/05/2023 to 25/06/2023		$32.30	Rent arrears (for the period 26/05/2023 to 25/06/2023
Total award	$139.00	$32.30
Net award	$106.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$106.70

Order

Vickie Helen Martin must immediately pay Village Estate Agents Limited, as Agent for Katie Lyall the amount in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Rent arrears or overpayment of rent?

The landlord applied for rent arrears and the cost of replacing a damaged light fitting that it says was damaged due to the careless act of the tenant’s son and 2-year-old grandchild entering the premises without ensuring there was enough head space to clear the light fitting.
The tenant applied for overpayment of rent to be reimbursed to her and for reimbursement of the water rates she had paid for the period 15/05/2023 to 26/05/2023.
Both parties provided rent records, which were traversed extensively and during the hearing. The parties agreed at the hearing that these records prove the amount of rent owing to the tenant is $32.30. For clarity, this amount is comprised of the following: a. Overpayment of rent by the tenant of $1,574.87 (for the period 26/5/2023 to 26/5/2023); b. $1,803.45 credited to the tenant on 31/05/2023, 19/06/2023 and 21/07/2023, as a result of the premises being flooded and being uninhabitable from 26/05/2023 to 25/06/2023; c. The tenant being owed a power rebate of $124.59; d. The tenant being owed $135.71 of tenancy funds held by the agent for the landlord and not paid out at the end of the tenancy; and e. The tenant being owed an agreed rebate of $10.00 on the water bill for the period 15/05/2023 to 26/05/2023. This agreement was made during the hearing.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the light fitting?

The landlord sought reimbursement of the $139.00 to replace a light fitting in the entrance way to the premises that was broken when the tenant’s son entered the premises with his 2-year-old child on his shoulders.
The landlord argued that the damage was caused due to the tenant’s visitor’s careless action.
The tenant argued: a. The light fitting was too low for an entrance way and was therefore unsafe; and b. The damage caused was not foreseeable and was an accident for which she should not be held liable.
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.
After considering all the information provided by the parties, I find that the damage to the light fitting was caused by the carelessness of the tenant’s visitor, and not an accident, for which she is liable. The tenant’s son entered the premises with a 2-year-old child on his shoulders without checking that he had sufficient head space to clear the light fitting. It was reasonably foreseeable that the low light fitting could be knocked and that damage to the light fitting may result. His careless action led to the direct loss of $139.00 to the landlord, which is not recoverable by its insurance. I am satisfied that given the age and condition of the light fitting, this amount returns the landlord to the position it would have been in but for the careless action that caused the loss.
The amount ordered has been proven by a receipt from Lighting Plus. Filing fee
Because neither Village Estate Agents Limited, as Agent for Katie Lyall, or Vickie Helen Martin have been wholly or substantially successful in their claims, I decline both applications for reimbursement the filing fees. In all the circumstances it is fair for the costs to lay where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4672709 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 6, 24A Hamilton Road, Herne Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4672709 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 6, 24A Hamilton Road, Herne Bay, Auckland 1011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Rent arrears or overpayment of rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the light fitting?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Rent arrears or overpayment of rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the light fitting?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions