What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4742231?

The tribunal order states: Sara Rock and Benjamin Thomas Arnold must pay Northside Property

How much money was awarded in case 4742231?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4742231?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4742231?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10289721-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4742231?

The tribunal order states: Sara Rock and Benjamin Thomas Arnold must pay Northside Property

How much money was awarded in case 4742231?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $900.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4742231?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4742231?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10289721-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Poaka Place, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4742231 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4742231 — net $3,620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for gate latch repair	$900.00	Insurance excess for gate latch repair
Insurance excess for damage to carpet and tiles	$900.00	Insurance excess for damage to carpet and tiles
Insurance excess for replacement of hallway door and damage to doors and walls	$900.00	Insurance excess for replacement of hallway door and damage to doors and walls
Insurance excess for damage to ensuite bathroom mirror	$900.00	Insurance excess for damage to ensuite bathroom mirror
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,620.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,620.44

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation/damages and reimbursement of the filing fee 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: a. The latch to the external gate was damaged; b. The carpets throughout the house were stained and dirty and required replacement; c. There were some tiles cracked/chipped in the dining room, bathroom and kitchen; d. The mirror in the ensuite was cracked; e. The door from the hallway had been removed and needed to be replaced and several of the doors throughout the house and the marks/scratches and holes in the walls in the house and garage needed to be repaired.

This damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for this damage.

The tenants did disprove liability for the landlord’s claim for the insurance excess for damage to the downstairs bathroom and the cooktop. No such damage was noted on the exit inspection report, there was no photographic evidence of this damage provided nor was a copy of the insurance claims were not provided.

The tenants also disproved liability for the broken toilet cistern, but I have awarded the landlord the excess for the ensuite based on the damage to a large wall mirror that required replacement. I am satisfied the cost of the mirror and labour/mileage for its installation and any repairs to the ensuite wall from the removal of the cracked mirror would amount to the same or more than the $900.00 insurance excess claimed by the landlord.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Sarah Rock has explained to the landlord that the tenants accept joint liability for repayment of the debt but are unable to repay the debt in one lump sum. She made a commitment on both tenants’ behalf that they will contact the property manager to agree a repayment plan. Reimbursement of the filing fee

Because Northside Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4742231 — net $3,620.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess for gate latch repair	$900.00	Insurance excess for gate latch repair
Insurance excess for damage to carpet and tiles	$900.00	Insurance excess for damage to carpet and tiles
Insurance excess for replacement of hallway door and damage to doors and walls	$900.00	Insurance excess for replacement of hallway door and damage to doors and walls
Insurance excess for damage to ensuite bathroom mirror	$900.00	Insurance excess for damage to ensuite bathroom mirror
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,620.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,620.44

Order

Sara Rock and Benjamin Thomas Arnold must pay Northside Property Management Limited $3,620.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below (“the debt”).

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation/damages and reimbursement of the filing fee 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: a. The latch to the external gate was damaged; b. The carpets throughout the house were stained and dirty and required replacement; c. There were some tiles cracked/chipped in the dining room, bathroom and kitchen; d. The mirror in the ensuite was cracked; e. The door from the hallway had been removed and needed to be replaced and several of the doors throughout the house and the marks/scratches and holes in the walls in the house and garage needed to be repaired.
This damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for this damage.
The tenants did disprove liability for the landlord’s claim for the insurance excess for damage to the downstairs bathroom and the cooktop. No such damage was noted on the exit inspection report, there was no photographic evidence of this damage provided nor was a copy of the insurance claims were not provided.
The tenants also disproved liability for the broken toilet cistern, but I have awarded the landlord the excess for the ensuite based on the damage to a large wall mirror that required replacement. I am satisfied the cost of the mirror and labour/mileage for its installation and any repairs to the ensuite wall from the removal of the cracked mirror would amount to the same or more than the $900.00 insurance excess claimed by the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Sarah Rock has explained to the landlord that the tenants accept joint liability for repayment of the debt but are unable to repay the debt in one lump sum. She made a commitment on both tenants’ behalf that they will contact the property manager to agree a repayment plan. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because Northside Property Management Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4742231 — Property damage at 9 Poaka Place, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4742231 — Property damage at 9 Poaka Place, Beach Haven, Auckland 0626

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