What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4687790?

The tribunal order states: Manpreet Sandhu and Maninder Singh Sandhu must pay Lodge City Rentals

How much money was awarded in case 4687790?

Compensation: $2,120.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4687790?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4687790?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9973751-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4687790?

The tribunal order states: Manpreet Sandhu and Maninder Singh Sandhu must pay Lodge City Rentals

How much money was awarded in case 4687790?

Compensation: $2,120.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4687790?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4687790?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9973751-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Dowding Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4687790 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4687790 — net $2,140.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation	$2,120.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,140.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,140.44

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant claimed that they were not liable to pay for the insurance excess claimed by the landlord for repairs to the premises. The landlords sought compensation for damage to the premises, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The claim for damages to the vinyl flooring in the kitchen was withdrawn.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 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.

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.

It was not disputed by the tenant that the children at the premises drew on the walls in the kitchen, living room, hallway and 2 bedrooms. The wallpaper was also damaged by the children ripping it off over time.

This damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord discussed with the tenant the option of repairing the damages themselves by re-wallpapering the walls and then painting the rooms so that the colour would match even if the texture did not.

The tenants sought to attend to the repairs. There was some disagreement about whether the tenants were told by the landlords that the owners requested that only one colour was to be used. No evidence was provided supporting this.

The tenant got their own contractor who re-wallpapered with a different size paper causing obvious strips in the walls which were added to make it fit. The holes in the walls were square patched and painted over which did not hide the patches. In the hallway a large square patch was also obvious. Different colours were used in the rooms.

The landlords provided photos of the repainted rooms which showed that they were not cut in very well with paint marks on skirting, light switches and the mantel piece had paint down the side. Some areas appeared to be smooth, and others textured on the same wall.

Updated photos from the tenant shows some improvement on the cutting in areas.

The owners, upon inspection, were not happy with the quality of the tenants work and made an insurance claim on this basis.

The insurance company awarded the claim with an excess of $500.00 to be paid for each room, being a total of $2500.00. The landlords sought to recover this cost.

I find that the initial damage by the children as intentional as it was over a large area and was not a single instance. The landlords allowed a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty.

The compensation sought by the landlord is for the repairs attempted by the tenants and I find that this was careless.

The tenants tried their best to repair the children’s damages, but the repairs were not to a reasonable standard. Three sets of inspection photos from the start of the tenancy, the children’s damages and the tenants paint repair were provided for comparison.

I find that the tenants are liable to pay compensation for this breach and dismiss their claims that the landlord could not ask them to pay for this damage.

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 . See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

The landlord’s claim is for $2500.00 and confirmed that the rent is $530.00 per week. The lesser amount is four weeks rent being $2120.00 which is ordered.

The amounts ordered are proved.

The filing fee is reimbursed to the landlord as they were successful with their application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4687790 — net $2,140.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation	$2,120.00	Compensation
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,140.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,140.44

Order

Manpreet Sandhu and Maninder Singh Sandhu must pay Lodge City Rentals Limited as Agent for The Aurora Trust - Carol Brown Lisa Bauerfeind $2140.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claimed that they were not liable to pay for the insurance excess claimed by the landlord for repairs to the premises. The landlords sought compensation for damage to the premises, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The claim for damages to the vinyl flooring in the kitchen was 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 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.
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.
It was not disputed by the tenant that the children at the premises drew on the walls in the kitchen, living room, hallway and 2 bedrooms. The wallpaper was also damaged by the children ripping it off over time.
This damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord discussed with the tenant the option of repairing the damages themselves by re-wallpapering the walls and then painting the rooms so that the colour would match even if the texture did not.
The tenants sought to attend to the repairs. There was some disagreement about whether the tenants were told by the landlords that the owners requested that only one colour was to be used. No evidence was provided supporting this.
The tenant got their own contractor who re-wallpapered with a different size paper causing obvious strips in the walls which were added to make it fit. The holes in the walls were square patched and painted over which did not hide the patches. In the hallway a large square patch was also obvious. Different colours were used in the rooms.
The landlords provided photos of the repainted rooms which showed that they were not cut in very well with paint marks on skirting, light switches and the mantel piece had paint down the side. Some areas appeared to be smooth, and others textured on the same wall.
Updated photos from the tenant shows some improvement on the cutting in areas.
The owners, upon inspection, were not happy with the quality of the tenants work and made an insurance claim on this basis.
The insurance company awarded the claim with an excess of $500.00 to be paid for each room, being a total of $2500.00. The landlords sought to recover this cost.
I find that the initial damage by the children as intentional as it was over a large area and was not a single instance. The landlords allowed a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty.
The compensation sought by the landlord is for the repairs attempted by the tenants and I find that this was careless.
The tenants tried their best to repair the children’s damages, but the repairs were not to a reasonable standard. Three sets of inspection photos from the start of the tenancy, the children’s damages and the tenants paint repair were provided for comparison.
I find that the tenants are liable to pay compensation for this breach and dismiss their claims that the landlord could not ask them to pay for this damage.
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 . See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
The landlord’s claim is for $2500.00 and confirmed that the rent is $530.00 per week. The lesser amount is four weeks rent being $2120.00 which is ordered.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The filing fee is reimbursed to the landlord as they were successful with their application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4687790 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Dowding Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4687790 — Tenancy dispute at 9 Dowding Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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