What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4894424?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4894424?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4894424?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894424?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10601428-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4894424?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4894424?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4894424?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4894424?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10601428-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Codrington Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4894424 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The respondent didn’t answer any of the six calls that were made at the scheduled time to the two numbers provided to the Tribunal.

In the days leading up to the hearing, the Tribunal received material from the respondent’s email to which the respondent had been served notice of the hearing. I am satisfied the respondent knew of the hearing and of the time for the hearing and chose not to attend. The hearing was conducted in the absence of the respondent.

The landlord has applied for $1800.00 compensation for repairing 156 nail holes, refund of the bond 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.

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 landlord submitted a quotation for $1,800.00 for repairing 156 nail holes. The landlord stated that the work had been completed, but the invoice was not submitted to the Tribunal because it is in Chinese.

Prior to the hearing photographs from inspection reports were submitted to the Tribunal which show fairy lights hanging off the exterior of the property, and two bamboo drapes hanging inside the property.

During the hearing the landlord forwarded photographs that show a few nails lodged in the plaster cladding of the premises and in the barge boards, a few nail holes, and one photograph showing a fist sized area of damage where plaster has pulled away from some slimline.

There is no more than one photograph that shows any repair work having been done.

In summary, the information supporting the damage is minimal, the cost of repairs is solely the word of the landlord, and the repairs themselves (having been completed) are not proved.

Without doubting the landlord’s reliability, inaccuracies occur and mistakes can be made. Because of this I am not prepared to accept the accuracy of the claim which is for a substantial sum against evidence of minimal damage, without documentary information in support.

The claim for compensation is not proved to the requisite civil standard of on the balance of probabilities.

Reasons

The landlord has applied for $1800.00 compensation for repairing 156 nail holes, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

There is no more than one photograph that shows any repair work having been done.

In summary, the information supporting the damage is minimal, the cost of repairs is solely the word of the landlord, and the repairs themselves (having been completed) are not proved.

The claim for compensation is not proved to the requisite civil standard of on the balance of probabilities.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894424 — Property damage at 26 Codrington Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4894424 — Property damage at 26 Codrington Crescent, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071

At a glance

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

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