What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4752514?

The tribunal order states: Zakyah Almousoy, Asmaa Aljazeeri and Zahraa Aljazeeri to pay Doran

How much money was awarded in case 4752514?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4752514?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4752514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10422342-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4752514?

The tribunal order states: Zakyah Almousoy, Asmaa Aljazeeri and Zahraa Aljazeeri to pay Doran

How much money was awarded in case 4752514?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4752514?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4752514?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10422342-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Fir Street, Waterview, Auckland 1026 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4752514 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4752514 — net $720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$700.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$720.44
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$720.44

Order

Zakyah Almousoy, Asmaa Aljazeeri and Zahraa Aljazeeri to pay Doran Property Management Limited As Agent For The Moonlit Company Ltd $720.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (3289922-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Doran Property Management Limited As Agent For The Moonlit Company Ltd: $720.44 Zakyah Almousoy, Asmaa Aljazeeri and Zahraa Aljazeeri: $2,279.56
The tenant’s claim of breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied to have the bond refunded and raised a claim for breach of quiet enjoyment.
The landlord applied for compensation for careless damage caused to a polished wood floor.

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. Damage to the polished wood floor
The landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs dated 16/8/2022, that show large areas of the premises including large areas of the floor. The polish finish of the floor looks to be in very good condition.
The landlord also provided photographs of specific areas of the floor at the end of the tenancy, dated 22/8/2023, which show many areas of localised damage to the floor; by this I mean many areas where there are several long indentations in the floor, approximately of 500mm – 700mm long, and several smaller areas of more intense damage such as scratchings into the floor, approximately 200mm square.
The landlord provided photographs taken during routine inspections that show furniture stacked in the middle of rooms, and around the edges of rooms. The landlord submitted that these pieces of furniture being moved regularly caused the damage, and that the damage was careless, being more than fair wear and tear but not intentional.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report, which noted scuff marks to walls raised by the tenant, but no mention of any damage to the floor.
The landlord also produced an email from the tenant shortly after the beginning of the tenancy noting a few things that had been missed in the pre-tenancy inspection report, including a rubber shoe mark on the polished wood floor.
The landlord submitted that if there were marks on the floor at the beginning of the tenancy, the tenant, who was vigilant in their undertaking of the pre-tenancy inspection, would have noted them in the report.
In the hearing the tenant did not accept the validity of the pre-tenancy photographs. No explanation why not, was given.
I do accept the validity of the photographs and the dates they were taken. And I accept that the bulk of the damage presented, was caused during the tenancy.
A small amount of damage to a wood floor, the type of which typically suffers dents and scratches easily, would be acceptable fair wear and tear. The amount of damage in this case, and in some instances the depth of the damage, goes beyond fair wear and tear and amounts to careless damage. Compensation for the damage
In total across the lounge, dining room, hallway I count 18 areas of damage some of which are minor.
The landlord stated that the floor was coated at the beginning of 2018 as part of a full renovation. That is almost six years before the end of the tenancy, in September 2023.
The IRD Depreciation Schedule does not specify how long a polyurethane coated floor can be expected to last. A search on the internet gives a wide range of results, but six to eight years shows up in several results.
The landlord got two quotations for recoating the floor; one quotation was for $7,000 and the other for $10,000. One quotation stated that because the coating darkens in colour over time, repairs are not recommended as they leave a patched appearance.
The landlord stated an insurance claim was declined because the damage was not the result of a single incident, but was caused over an extended period of time.
I would describe the damage as somewhat significant, mildly unsightly and largely superficial in nature. It has not caused any loss of amenity, and has not been repaired by the landlord. The landlord has re-rented the property at the same price, meaning the damage has not caused any reduction in rental income.
Although the landlord has not suffered financial loss as of today’s date, I accept that the landlord has suffered a loss due to carelessness by the tenant, and this loss must be compensated.
To compensate the landlord for the damage he has suffered, after taking into account betterment and depreciation, so that the landlord is returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and not be better or worse off, I consider an amount of $700.00 to be appropriate.
This is approximately one tenth of the cost of recoating the floor, maintenance work that may reasonably be expected in a tenancy property approximately every ten years. However, even if the coating could be expected to last twenty years, I would not award a larger amount, as I consider repairs rather than a total recoat to be a sufficient remedy given all the circumstances of this claim. Whether the landlord prefers to recoat the whole floor at their cost, repair the damage, or leave the repairs for a future date is a matter for them. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant stated that she suffered mentally, morally and psychologically because of the landlord’s constant inspections and requests. The tenant was unable to give any details in support of her claim.
In response the landlord pointed to an email sent by the tenant before the first inspection, in which the tenant indicates they wish to leave the fixed-term tenancy early. The landlord then set out the routine inspections that were conducted over the tenancy, and the correspondence that passed between the two parties. The landlord was credible, and there was nothing beyond the usual proactive conduct of a landlord. This claim is not proved. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression in the case that they were successful in their applications. The RTA, section 95A(1) provides the following: The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Tenancy Tribunal hearings are open to the public, and there is a presumption that details of claims will be accessible to the public. Because an award has been made for damage that has not been repaired it is in the public interest that details of this claim should not be suppressed. Against this, no particular reasons were given by the landlord as to why their details should be suppressed.
Name suppression is not ordered.
Because Doran Property Management Limited As Agent For The Moonlit Company Ltd has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4752514 — net $720.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$700.00	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$720.44
Bond	$3,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$720.44

Order

Zakyah Almousoy, Asmaa Aljazeeri and Zahraa Aljazeeri to pay Doran Property Management Limited As Agent For The Moonlit Company Ltd $720.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,000.00 (3289922-006) immediately apportioned as follows: Doran Property Management Limited As Agent For The Moonlit Company Ltd: $720.44 Zakyah Almousoy, Asmaa Aljazeeri and Zahraa Aljazeeri: $2,279.56
The tenant’s claim of breach of quiet enjoyment is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant applied to have the bond refunded and raised a claim for breach of quiet enjoyment.
The landlord applied for compensation for careless damage caused to a polished wood floor.

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. Damage to the polished wood floor
The landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs dated 16/8/2022, that show large areas of the premises including large areas of the floor. The polish finish of the floor looks to be in very good condition.
The landlord also provided photographs of specific areas of the floor at the end of the tenancy, dated 22/8/2023, which show many areas of localised damage to the floor; by this I mean many areas where there are several long indentations in the floor, approximately of 500mm – 700mm long, and several smaller areas of more intense damage such as scratchings into the floor, approximately 200mm square.
The landlord provided photographs taken during routine inspections that show furniture stacked in the middle of rooms, and around the edges of rooms. The landlord submitted that these pieces of furniture being moved regularly caused the damage, and that the damage was careless, being more than fair wear and tear but not intentional.
The landlord provided a pre-tenancy inspection report, which noted scuff marks to walls raised by the tenant, but no mention of any damage to the floor.
The landlord also produced an email from the tenant shortly after the beginning of the tenancy noting a few things that had been missed in the pre-tenancy inspection report, including a rubber shoe mark on the polished wood floor.
The landlord submitted that if there were marks on the floor at the beginning of the tenancy, the tenant, who was vigilant in their undertaking of the pre-tenancy inspection, would have noted them in the report.
In the hearing the tenant did not accept the validity of the pre-tenancy photographs. No explanation why not, was given.
I do accept the validity of the photographs and the dates they were taken. And I accept that the bulk of the damage presented, was caused during the tenancy.
A small amount of damage to a wood floor, the type of which typically suffers dents and scratches easily, would be acceptable fair wear and tear. The amount of damage in this case, and in some instances the depth of the damage, goes beyond fair wear and tear and amounts to careless damage. Compensation for the damage
In total across the lounge, dining room, hallway I count 18 areas of damage some of which are minor.
The landlord stated that the floor was coated at the beginning of 2018 as part of a full renovation. That is almost six years before the end of the tenancy, in September 2023.
The IRD Depreciation Schedule does not specify how long a polyurethane coated floor can be expected to last. A search on the internet gives a wide range of results, but six to eight years shows up in several results.
The landlord got two quotations for recoating the floor; one quotation was for $7,000 and the other for $10,000. One quotation stated that because the coating darkens in colour over time, repairs are not recommended as they leave a patched appearance.
The landlord stated an insurance claim was declined because the damage was not the result of a single incident, but was caused over an extended period of time.
I would describe the damage as somewhat significant, mildly unsightly and largely superficial in nature. It has not caused any loss of amenity, and has not been repaired by the landlord. The landlord has re-rented the property at the same price, meaning the damage has not caused any reduction in rental income.
Although the landlord has not suffered financial loss as of today’s date, I accept that the landlord has suffered a loss due to carelessness by the tenant, and this loss must be compensated.
To compensate the landlord for the damage he has suffered, after taking into account betterment and depreciation, so that the landlord is returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and not be better or worse off, I consider an amount of $700.00 to be appropriate.
This is approximately one tenth of the cost of recoating the floor, maintenance work that may reasonably be expected in a tenancy property approximately every ten years. However, even if the coating could be expected to last twenty years, I would not award a larger amount, as I consider repairs rather than a total recoat to be a sufficient remedy given all the circumstances of this claim. Whether the landlord prefers to recoat the whole floor at their cost, repair the damage, or leave the repairs for a future date is a matter for them. Breach of quiet enjoyment
The tenant stated that she suffered mentally, morally and psychologically because of the landlord’s constant inspections and requests. The tenant was unable to give any details in support of her claim.
In response the landlord pointed to an email sent by the tenant before the first inspection, in which the tenant indicates they wish to leave the fixed-term tenancy early. The landlord then set out the routine inspections that were conducted over the tenancy, and the correspondence that passed between the two parties. The landlord was credible, and there was nothing beyond the usual proactive conduct of a landlord. This claim is not proved. Name suppression
Both parties sought name suppression in the case that they were successful in their applications. The RTA, section 95A(1) provides the following: The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Tenancy Tribunal hearings are open to the public, and there is a presumption that details of claims will be accessible to the public. Because an award has been made for damage that has not been repaired it is in the public interest that details of this claim should not be suppressed. Against this, no particular reasons were given by the landlord as to why their details should be suppressed.
Name suppression is not ordered.
Because Doran Property Management Limited As Agent For The Moonlit Company Ltd has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4752514 — Property damage at 24 Fir Street, Waterview, Auckland 1026

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4752514 — Property damage at 24 Fir Street, Waterview, Auckland 1026

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