What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4681531?

The tribunal order states: Lorana Honey Moana must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4681531?

Property Damage: $1,035.31 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $839.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4681531?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4681531?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9725671-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4681531?

The tribunal order states: Lorana Honey Moana must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4681531?

Property Damage: $1,035.31 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $839.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4681531?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4681531?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9725671-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20A Deveron Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4681531 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4681531 — net $1,874.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Balance of security system replacement	$1,035.31	Balance of security system replacement
Repairs	$839.50	Repairs
Net award	$1,874.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,874.81

The landlord attended this remote teleconference hearing.

Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am so satisfied.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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: Damage to a security system. The landlord evidence was that this was intentionally damaged by the tenant during the tenancy. The cost to replace the system was $2,200.00 An invoice was provided. The tenant has already paid $834.69 towards the replacement. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I have taken into account 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 item at the start of the tenancy and the likely useful lifespan. The depreciated value is $1,870.00 less the payment made by the tenant of $834.69 leaving a balance of $1,035.31. Damage to walls and a handrail – The landlord provided photos and an invoice for the repairs in support of the claim. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord insurance excess is $500.00 for each and every claim. Each claim by the landlord is less than $500.00, but totals $839.50.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4681531 — net $1,874.81 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Balance of security system replacement	$1,035.31	Balance of security system replacement
Repairs	$839.50	Repairs
Net award	$1,874.81
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,874.81

Order

Lorana Honey Moana must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Bonyson Michael Gonsalves $1,874.81 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended this remote teleconference hearing.
Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am so satisfied.
The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

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: Damage to a security system. The landlord evidence was that this was intentionally damaged by the tenant during the tenancy. The cost to replace the system was $2,200.00 An invoice was provided. The tenant has already paid $834.69 towards the replacement. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I have taken into account 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 item at the start of the tenancy and the likely useful lifespan. The depreciated value is $1,870.00 less the payment made by the tenant of $834.69 leaving a balance of $1,035.31. Damage to walls and a handrail – The landlord provided photos and an invoice for the repairs in support of the claim. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord insurance excess is $500.00 for each and every claim. Each claim by the landlord is less than $500.00, but totals $839.50.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4681531 — Property damage at 20A Deveron Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4681531 — Property damage at 20A Deveron Road, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

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