What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4895142?

The tribunal order states: Both claim and counterclaim are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4895142?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4895142?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4895142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10517426-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4895142?

The tribunal order states: Both claim and counterclaim are dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4895142?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4895142?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4895142?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10517426-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 153 Victoria Avenue, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4895142 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation of $900 plus GST for gate repair costs. The tenant Mr McCarroll has applied for compensation of $450 for cost of repairs to his damaged car.

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.

The gate was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.

Having heard from the tenant, I accept the tenant’s viva voce evidence before me that the tenant Hamish McCarroll has not carelessly or intentionally damaged the gate.

Mr McCarroll was backing out of the premises with the gate still open at the time. Before he was able to reach the road and the external gate sensor, the gate started closing. He continued to back out at which time the gate closed in on his car damaging his wing mirror.

Mr McCarroll was unable to exit the premises fully nor reach the gate sensor in time because of road works being carried out at the material time.

While on hindsight, Mr McCarroll ought not to have exited the premises at the material time, I do not consider Mr McCarroll to have acted carelessly or intentionally in causing damage to the gate in the circumstances.

The first email that Mr McCarroll sent to the property manager that described the incident does not contradict his evidence adduced at the hearing. Mr McCarroll had said: As I was driving up the driveway, the gate began to close unexpectedly. Unable to reverse in time to avoid the incoming gate, I continued my path in an attempt to exit onto the road. Unfortunately the gate continued to close, causing scratches along the side of my car and removing the left wing mirror. It was a concerning experience, pointing to a failure of the gate sensors to detect my vehicle and halt the closing mechanism.

Mr McCarroll’s evidence is that his small hatchback vehicle had not made it to the sensor in time to prevent the gate from closing in onto his car.

For that reason, I consider that while the damage to the gate had occurred during the tenancy, the tenant has disproved liability for the damage in that the tenant had not carelessly or intentionally damaged it. Is the landlord responsible for the damage to the tenant’s car?

As for the tenant’s claim that the gate was operating improperly or the sensor had failed, there is no evidence before me that the gate was operating improperly or the sensor had failed. I accept the report by the gate installer Sunshine Iron that the sensor was functioning properly and exhibited no abnormalities.

In those circumstances, the landlord has not failed on their maintenance obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the tenant’s claim for compensation also fails.

In the upshot, both claim and counterclaim are unsuccessful.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation of $900 plus GST for gate repair costs. The tenant Mr McCarroll has applied for compensation of $450 for cost of repairs to his damaged car.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The gate was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.

Having heard from the tenant, I accept the tenant’s viva voce evidence before me that the tenant Hamish McCarroll has not carelessly or intentionally damaged the gate.

Mr McCarroll was unable to exit the premises fully nor reach the gate sensor in time because of road works being carried out at the material time.

Mr McCarroll’s evidence is that his small hatchback vehicle had not made it to the sensor in time to prevent the gate from closing in onto his car.

In those circumstances, the landlord has not failed on their maintenance obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the tenant’s claim for compensation also fails.

In the upshot, both claim and counterclaim are unsuccessful.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4895142 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 153 Victoria Avenue, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4895142 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 153 Victoria Avenue, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions