What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4746691?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6449934-008) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4746691?

Property Damage: $656.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4746691?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4746691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9955348-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4746691?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6449934-008) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 4746691?

Property Damage: $656.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4746691?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4746691?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9955348-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 8, 24 Andrew Road, Howick, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4746691 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4746691 — net $656.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to cooktop (depreciated	$656.60	Repairs to cooktop (depreciated
Net award	$656.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$656.60

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6449934-008) immediately apportioned on the basis of the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Ashley.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has filed a cross claim but does not seek any compensation from the landlord. The tenant’s claim is essentially a defence to the landlord’s claim.

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.
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. Glass stove top
The landlord says that the glass stove top was damaged during tenancy. Ms Ashley says that the tenant advised the landlord that she had broken the stove top and agreed to pay for the damage. She produced photos showing the bottom left corner having broken off and the messages with the tenant in which she agreed to pay for repairs.
The landlord claims $828.00 for the repairs to the cooktop based on an invoice provided to the Tribunal. Ms Ashley explained that after making enquiries the landlord discovered that it was not possible to repair the glass cook top and that it had to be replaced.
I accept the landlord’s submission that the damage to the cooktop is more than fair wear and tear. It is common for glass cooktops to become scratched over time but be not broken as in this case. As the landlord has proven that the damage is more than fair wear and tear the onus then shifts to the tenant to prove that the damage was not intentional or careless.
The tenant says that she was stirring soup on the right side of the stove when they went to put items away in the cupboard above on the left hand side of the stove. She says that while her attention was on stirring the soup she dropped the pot and it landed on the left side of the cooktop, causing the glass top crack in the bottom left corner. She says that she was not careless and that dropping the pot was simply an accident.
The tenant says further that she was initially shocked about what happened and so admitted fault, but it was only after she talked the matter over with friends and spoke with Tenancy Services that she realised that she should not have admitted liability as the damage was accidental. Furthermore, she says that the glass cook top does not need to be replaced as it is still perfectly functional.
Often the line between accidental damage and careless damage will be a fine one. In this case the tenant says that she was stirring soup and had her attention on doing that while also putting a pot away, which caused the pot to drop on the glass cook top. In my view the tenant’s actions were careless. Heavy items are stored above the glass cooktop and the tenant needed to take care when putting them away.
I do not consider that the landlord could simply have left the cooktop as it was, even if perfectly functional, as the edge of the glass is sharp and a small part of the underneath cook top has been exposed.
The landlord is entitled to compensation for the cooktop. I was advised that the property was brand new in January 2021, so the cooktop is now two years old. The Inland Revenue Department General Depreciation Rates as at October 2023 provide that a residential stove has an expected lifespan of eight years. As the cooktop is now two years old I depreciate the amount of compensation claimed by 25%. I order compensation in the amount of $656.60.
The landlord’s insurance excess is $1,200 and so the liability is for the lesser amount of $656.60. Walls
The landlord sought compensation of $943.00 for repatching and painting walls. The landlord produced photos showing a small amount of paint missing (I was told when the tenant removed a stick-on hook), a small ding in the upstairs hallway (caused by movers as the tenant moved out) and two other small areas. The invoice is for the repair of the damage and full repaint of four walls with two coats of paint.
The landlord produced photos and during the hearing the tenant and I both viewed the photos on Ms Ashley’s laptop. In my view the damage was very minor.
I do not consider that the landlord has proven that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenancy lasted approximately 16 months. It is not uncommon for there to be the odd mark or small ding at the end of the tenancy of this duration and it is expected that the landlord may have to do some minor repairs and painting between tenancies.
The landlord’s claim in respect of the walls is dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee
As neither party has been substantially successful, I have not refunded the filing fees paid and have not made any orders for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4746691 — net $656.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to cooktop (depreciated	$656.60	Repairs to cooktop (depreciated
Net award	$656.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$656.60

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (6449934-008) immediately apportioned on the basis of the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Ashley.
The landlord has applied for compensation from the bond following the end of the tenancy. The tenant has filed a cross claim but does not seek any compensation from the landlord. The tenant’s claim is essentially a defence to the landlord’s claim.

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.
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. Glass stove top
The landlord says that the glass stove top was damaged during tenancy. Ms Ashley says that the tenant advised the landlord that she had broken the stove top and agreed to pay for the damage. She produced photos showing the bottom left corner having broken off and the messages with the tenant in which she agreed to pay for repairs.
The landlord claims $828.00 for the repairs to the cooktop based on an invoice provided to the Tribunal. Ms Ashley explained that after making enquiries the landlord discovered that it was not possible to repair the glass cook top and that it had to be replaced.
I accept the landlord’s submission that the damage to the cooktop is more than fair wear and tear. It is common for glass cooktops to become scratched over time but be not broken as in this case. As the landlord has proven that the damage is more than fair wear and tear the onus then shifts to the tenant to prove that the damage was not intentional or careless.
The tenant says that she was stirring soup on the right side of the stove when they went to put items away in the cupboard above on the left hand side of the stove. She says that while her attention was on stirring the soup she dropped the pot and it landed on the left side of the cooktop, causing the glass top crack in the bottom left corner. She says that she was not careless and that dropping the pot was simply an accident.
The tenant says further that she was initially shocked about what happened and so admitted fault, but it was only after she talked the matter over with friends and spoke with Tenancy Services that she realised that she should not have admitted liability as the damage was accidental. Furthermore, she says that the glass cook top does not need to be replaced as it is still perfectly functional.
Often the line between accidental damage and careless damage will be a fine one. In this case the tenant says that she was stirring soup and had her attention on doing that while also putting a pot away, which caused the pot to drop on the glass cook top. In my view the tenant’s actions were careless. Heavy items are stored above the glass cooktop and the tenant needed to take care when putting them away.
I do not consider that the landlord could simply have left the cooktop as it was, even if perfectly functional, as the edge of the glass is sharp and a small part of the underneath cook top has been exposed.
The landlord is entitled to compensation for the cooktop. I was advised that the property was brand new in January 2021, so the cooktop is now two years old. The Inland Revenue Department General Depreciation Rates as at October 2023 provide that a residential stove has an expected lifespan of eight years. As the cooktop is now two years old I depreciate the amount of compensation claimed by 25%. I order compensation in the amount of $656.60.
The landlord’s insurance excess is $1,200 and so the liability is for the lesser amount of $656.60. Walls
The landlord sought compensation of $943.00 for repatching and painting walls. The landlord produced photos showing a small amount of paint missing (I was told when the tenant removed a stick-on hook), a small ding in the upstairs hallway (caused by movers as the tenant moved out) and two other small areas. The invoice is for the repair of the damage and full repaint of four walls with two coats of paint.
The landlord produced photos and during the hearing the tenant and I both viewed the photos on Ms Ashley’s laptop. In my view the damage was very minor.
I do not consider that the landlord has proven that the damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenancy lasted approximately 16 months. It is not uncommon for there to be the odd mark or small ding at the end of the tenancy of this duration and it is expected that the landlord may have to do some minor repairs and painting between tenancies.
The landlord’s claim in respect of the walls is dismissed. Name suppression and filing fee
As neither party has been substantially successful, I have not refunded the filing fees paid and have not made any orders for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4746691 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 8, 24 Andrew Road, Howick, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4746691 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 8, 24 Andrew Road, Howick, Auckland 2010

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