What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4717693?

The tribunal order states: Donaye Nofoagatatoa must pay Nancy Himiona $2,606.59 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4717693?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $119.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $960.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bedroom Door: $673.35 awarded to landlord; Replace Laundry Floor: $830.80 awarded to landlord; Replace Window Latches: $669.00 awarded to landlord; Wash Wall And Windows: $374.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4717693?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4717693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10011919-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4717693?

The tribunal order states: Donaye Nofoagatatoa must pay Nancy Himiona $2,606.59 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4717693?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $119.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $960.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Bedroom Door: $673.35 awarded to landlord; Replace Laundry Floor: $830.80 awarded to landlord; Replace Window Latches: $669.00 awarded to landlord; Wash Wall And Windows: $374.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4717693?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4717693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10011919-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

78A Tarbet Street, Flaxmere, Hastings 4120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4717693 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4717693 — net $2,606.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$119.00	Lock/key replacement
Wash wall and windows	$374.00	Wash wall and windows
Replace laundry floor	$830.80	Replace laundry floor
Replace bedroom door	$673.35	Replace bedroom door
External corner repair	$500.00	External corner repair
Wall repairs	$960.00	Wall repairs
Replace window latches	$669.00	Replace window latches
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,606.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,606.59

Order

Donaye Nofoagatatoa must pay Nancy Himiona $2,606.59 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy ended on 20 April 2023 after the landlord gave notice of termination under s.55(2)(f) on the basis that extensive refurbishment was to be carried out.
By agreement, the bond of $1,540.00 was released to the landlord which the landlord applied to rent arrears and payment for damages that the landlord says were owing at the end of the tenancy. This claim was then brought seeking compensation for the cost of repairing additional damage.
I was concerned that the evidence did not show any basis for the landlord to have retained the tenant’s bond. The landlord was given the opportunity to provide additional evidence showing how the tenant’s bond was applied. The landlord has done so and there is correspondence showing that the tenant was informed of claims for damages and rent arrears.
That additional evidence does not however prove: a. That there were arrears of rent owed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy; or b. That in addition to the damage claimed in this application, there was damage caused by the tenant during the tenancy that she is responsible for, which landlord was entitled to have compensated out of the bond.
For that reason, I must offset against these claims, the bond paid to the landlord.

Did the tenant meet her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

A tenant must leave the premises in a reasonably clan and tidy condition and must return all keys.
Photographs provided by the landlord show that the premises were not left reasonably clean and significant wall washing and mould removal was required.
A key for the sliding door was not returned and the lock needed to be replaced.
The amounts claimed are included in the tradesman’s invoice and are reasonable

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 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.
Photographs provided by the landlord and the property manager’s oral evidence satisfy me that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. The laundry floor had rotted through; b. The floor by the back door which backed on to the laundry had rotted through; c. A bedroom door, including the surrounding jambs and framing was smashed; d. Metal corners on the exterior cladding had been pulled away; e. Window safety latches had been broken or removed; f. There were several holes in gib walls.
The claim includes a small charge for replacement of a shelf under a cracked kitchen sink but the evidence does not prove that the tenant was responsible for or aware of that damage.
The available evidence persuades me that it is more likely than not that the damage to the doors, door frames and gib walls was intentionally caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission. The tenant is accordingly liable for the repair cost.
The cause of the damage to the metal corners on the exterior cladding and the window stays and safety latches is less obvious but I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. That being so, it is for the tenant to prove that the damage did not occur in circumstances which mean she is responsible for it (see. s.49B(8)). Without any such evidence having been provided, I find it is more likely than not to have been carelessly or intentionally caused during the tenancy and that the tenant should compensate the landlord for the repair cost.
The damage to the floors appears more likely than not to have been caused by ongoing water damage from a leak. That in itself is wear and tear for which the tenant is not responsible.
There is however a fundamental obligation on tenants to let the landlord know about the need for repair of the premises, exactly to stop this sort of situation arising, where significant damage can arise from causes the landlord is not aware of so does not know need fixing.
The landlord says she was not told by the tenant about any leak in the laundry. She says the damage was not apparent during the inspections.
The landlord’s evidence is that when she spoke with the tenant about the damage and asked why the tenant had not told her about it, the tenant said she had told the previous property manager but that nothing had been done about it. The landlord says that when management of the premises was transferred to her she received the previous manager’s records which she checked, but there is no record of the tenant having made a notification about the leak.
Finally, the landlord says it is safe to infer that the tenant was aware of the leak because some attempts had been made by the tenant to repair the damage caused by it. Photos were provided.
Again, in these circumstances there is an onus on the tenant to provide evidence to show that she should not be required to compensate the landlord for the cost of repairing damage that, had she notified the landlord about it earlier, may well have been avoided. As the tenant has not attended the hearing, no such evidence is available.
I therefore find, on the balance of probabilities, that the cost to repair damage caused by that leak to the floors in the laundry and by the back door, primarily results from breach of the tenant’s obligation to advise the landlord about the leak so it could be repaired. In terms of the principle in Guo v Korck that must ne seen as intentional.
The landlord should be returned to the position she would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations, and should not be better or worse off. Had the tenant met her obligation to tell the landlord about the leak when she became aware of it, the landlord would still have been responsible for the cost of repairing the cause of the leak and fixing any damage caused by it until the tenant had become aware of it.
Accordingly, it is not reasonable that the landlord recover the whole of the repair cost, as that would put the landlord in a better position that if the tenant had met her obligation to tell the landlord about the need for repair. Allowance for that is made in the compensation awarded by apportioning those repair costs 67% tenant responsibility, 33% landlord responsibility.
The costs incurred by the landlord are proved by a tradesman’s invoice. The landlord’s evidence is that the tradesman is her husband, which requires that there be a higher level of scrutiny of the costs claimed. Having regard to the evidence showing the work required and the charges made, I am satisfied that the charges are reasonable.
Because Nancy Himiona has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4717693 — net $2,606.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$119.00	Lock/key replacement
Wash wall and windows	$374.00	Wash wall and windows
Replace laundry floor	$830.80	Replace laundry floor
Replace bedroom door	$673.35	Replace bedroom door
External corner repair	$500.00	External corner repair
Wall repairs	$960.00	Wall repairs
Replace window latches	$669.00	Replace window latches
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,606.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,606.59

Order

Donaye Nofoagatatoa must pay Nancy Himiona $2,606.59 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The tenancy ended on 20 April 2023 after the landlord gave notice of termination under s.55(2)(f) on the basis that extensive refurbishment was to be carried out.
By agreement, the bond of $1,540.00 was released to the landlord which the landlord applied to rent arrears and payment for damages that the landlord says were owing at the end of the tenancy. This claim was then brought seeking compensation for the cost of repairing additional damage.
I was concerned that the evidence did not show any basis for the landlord to have retained the tenant’s bond. The landlord was given the opportunity to provide additional evidence showing how the tenant’s bond was applied. The landlord has done so and there is correspondence showing that the tenant was informed of claims for damages and rent arrears.
That additional evidence does not however prove: a. That there were arrears of rent owed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy; or b. That in addition to the damage claimed in this application, there was damage caused by the tenant during the tenancy that she is responsible for, which landlord was entitled to have compensated out of the bond.
For that reason, I must offset against these claims, the bond paid to the landlord.

Did the tenant meet her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

A tenant must leave the premises in a reasonably clan and tidy condition and must return all keys.
Photographs provided by the landlord show that the premises were not left reasonably clean and significant wall washing and mould removal was required.
A key for the sliding door was not returned and the lock needed to be replaced.
The amounts claimed are included in the tradesman’s invoice and are reasonable

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 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.
Photographs provided by the landlord and the property manager’s oral evidence satisfy me that the following damage occurred during the tenancy: a. The laundry floor had rotted through; b. The floor by the back door which backed on to the laundry had rotted through; c. A bedroom door, including the surrounding jambs and framing was smashed; d. Metal corners on the exterior cladding had been pulled away; e. Window safety latches had been broken or removed; f. There were several holes in gib walls.
The claim includes a small charge for replacement of a shelf under a cracked kitchen sink but the evidence does not prove that the tenant was responsible for or aware of that damage.
The available evidence persuades me that it is more likely than not that the damage to the doors, door frames and gib walls was intentionally caused by someone at the premises with the tenant’s permission. The tenant is accordingly liable for the repair cost.
The cause of the damage to the metal corners on the exterior cladding and the window stays and safety latches is less obvious but I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. That being so, it is for the tenant to prove that the damage did not occur in circumstances which mean she is responsible for it (see. s.49B(8)). Without any such evidence having been provided, I find it is more likely than not to have been carelessly or intentionally caused during the tenancy and that the tenant should compensate the landlord for the repair cost.
The damage to the floors appears more likely than not to have been caused by ongoing water damage from a leak. That in itself is wear and tear for which the tenant is not responsible.
There is however a fundamental obligation on tenants to let the landlord know about the need for repair of the premises, exactly to stop this sort of situation arising, where significant damage can arise from causes the landlord is not aware of so does not know need fixing.
The landlord says she was not told by the tenant about any leak in the laundry. She says the damage was not apparent during the inspections.
The landlord’s evidence is that when she spoke with the tenant about the damage and asked why the tenant had not told her about it, the tenant said she had told the previous property manager but that nothing had been done about it. The landlord says that when management of the premises was transferred to her she received the previous manager’s records which she checked, but there is no record of the tenant having made a notification about the leak.
Finally, the landlord says it is safe to infer that the tenant was aware of the leak because some attempts had been made by the tenant to repair the damage caused by it. Photos were provided.
Again, in these circumstances there is an onus on the tenant to provide evidence to show that she should not be required to compensate the landlord for the cost of repairing damage that, had she notified the landlord about it earlier, may well have been avoided. As the tenant has not attended the hearing, no such evidence is available.
I therefore find, on the balance of probabilities, that the cost to repair damage caused by that leak to the floors in the laundry and by the back door, primarily results from breach of the tenant’s obligation to advise the landlord about the leak so it could be repaired. In terms of the principle in Guo v Korck that must ne seen as intentional.
The landlord should be returned to the position she would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations, and should not be better or worse off. Had the tenant met her obligation to tell the landlord about the leak when she became aware of it, the landlord would still have been responsible for the cost of repairing the cause of the leak and fixing any damage caused by it until the tenant had become aware of it.
Accordingly, it is not reasonable that the landlord recover the whole of the repair cost, as that would put the landlord in a better position that if the tenant had met her obligation to tell the landlord about the need for repair. Allowance for that is made in the compensation awarded by apportioning those repair costs 67% tenant responsibility, 33% landlord responsibility.
The costs incurred by the landlord are proved by a tradesman’s invoice. The landlord’s evidence is that the tradesman is her husband, which requires that there be a higher level of scrutiny of the costs claimed. Having regard to the evidence showing the work required and the charges made, I am satisfied that the charges are reasonable.
Because Nancy Himiona has substantially succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4717693 — Property damage at 78A Tarbet Street, Flaxmere, Hastings 4120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4717693 — Property damage at 78A Tarbet Street, Flaxmere, Hastings 4120

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant meet her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant meet her obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions