What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4912245?

The tribunal order states: Cecile Elsing to pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Karen Devereux

How much money was awarded in case 4912245?

Costs Associated With Ending Of Fixe…: $975.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $373.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $191.50 awarded to landlord; Refit Under Bench Bin And Curtain: $165.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4912245?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4912245?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10918777-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4912245?

The tribunal order states: Cecile Elsing to pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Karen Devereux

How much money was awarded in case 4912245?

Costs Associated With Ending Of Fixe…: $975.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $373.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $138.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $191.50 awarded to landlord; Refit Under Bench Bin And Curtain: $165.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4912245?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4912245?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10918777-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1108, 20 Park Avenue, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4912245 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4912245 — net $1,843.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Stone bench repair	$373.75	Stone bench repair
Replacement of heat pump remote control	$138.00	Replacement of heat pump remote control
Repair of damaged wardrobe	$191.50	Repair of damaged wardrobe
Refit under bench bin and curtain	$165.60	Refit under bench bin and curtain
Costs associated with ending of fixed term tenancy early	$975.00	Costs associated with ending of fixed term tenancy early
Net award	$1,843.85
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,843.85

Order

Cecile Elsing to pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Karen Devereux $1,843.85 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (6513420-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Karen Devereux: $1,843.85 Cecile Elsing: $156.15
The application for damage to the walls is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person and the tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for compensation, costs associated with the tenant ending the fixed-term tenancy early, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Early termination of fixed term tenancy:
The tenancy agreement provides that the tenancy was for a fixed term of 18 months, starting on 24 November 2023 and ending on 23 May 2025.
The tenant ended the tenancy early, on 28 March 2024, because she was struggling to afford the rent.
The landlord advised the property was relet within approximately one week. The replacement tenancy was for a fixed term to March 2025. The weekly rent for the replacement fixed term was for the same amount as the tenant was paying.
The landlord is claiming the following costs which it says it incurred because of the tenant ending the fixed-term tenancy early: Advertising costs $158.90 Viewing for prospective tenants$265.30 Background & credit checks on prospective tenants$34.50 Screening of applications and reference$90.00 Completing tenancy agreement$90.00 Ingoing and vacating inspections$111.30 Administration costs $225.00 TOTAL: $975.00
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that Karen Devereux has paid these costs. The tenant disputes the amount charged saying the hourly rate of $90.00 charged by the management company was too high.
Section 44A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that landlords are entitled to recover the reasonable costs of accepting the surrender of a tenancy. Section 44A(2) of the RTA provides that the landlord must first generate an invoice for the costs and send the invoice to the tenant. The landlord has provided evidence that an invoice was generated and sent to the tenant.
I do not accept the tenant’s assertion that the management company’s charge of $90 per hour is excessive.
This claim is proved, and I award the sum of $975.00 (including GST).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 tenancy agreement provides that the premises were not insured.
The landlord asserts that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Chip to stone bench top; b. Replacement of heat pump remote control; c. Replacement of damaged wardrobe centre shelf rail; d. Repairs and repaint of scratches to walls and door frames; and e. Refit of under bench rubbish bin and curtain. Stone bench top:
The tenant admits that the damage to the stone bench top occurred during the tenancy but says she should not be liable for it because it was caused by the shelf in the overhead cupboard becoming loose and falling on the bench top.
The landlord says the shelf was securely fitted at the start of the tenancy and it broke because the tenant overloaded it. The landlord also disputes whether the shelf caused the damage to the bench top saying it would be unlikely to fall out and land on the bench as described by the tenant.
As set out in paragraph 11 above, once the landlord has proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy, the burden of proof falls on the tenant to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional.
The standard of proof that applies is the balance of probabilities. That means that the party who has the burden of prove must prove that what they are claiming is more likely than not. To put that into a mathematical context, the burden is just over the 50% probability mark.
The tenant acknowledges that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and this is supported by the photographs in the pre-tenancy inspection report. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not careless or intentional. I consider it is unlikely that the damage would have occurred by the shelf falling out of the cupboard as described by the tenant.
The landlord has provided an invoice for this work.
This claim is proved, and I award $373.75 (including GST) for this claim. Replacement of heat pump remote control:
The landlord says at the end of the tenancy the back of the remote control was missing leaving the batteries exposed. The landlord says they tried to get a replacement part for the remote control but were unable to do so and had to replace it.
The tenant acknowledges that part from the remote control went missing during the tenancy. However, she does not believe she should be liable for the replacement cost because the remote control still worked.
I find it was reasonable for the landlord to replace the remote control.
The landlord has provided an invoice for this work.
This claim is proved, and I award $138.00 (including GST) for this claim. Replacement of damaged wardrobe centre shelf rail:
The landlord says the rail was damaged because the tenant overloaded the shelf in the wardrobe with her belongings. The tenant says the issue was the shelf was fixed to a stud/wooden frame meaning it was not fit for purposed.
The landlord advised that she believed the damage was caused by the tenant overloading the shelf because: the contractor told her the shelf was overloaded; and because in a further inspection, after the repair had taken place, the landlord saw that the shelf was overloaded again.
I asked why if the shelf was overloaded again, it did not break a further time. The landlord said this was because as part of the repair the contractor had needed to reinforce the attachment to the wall.
The tenant has failed to satisfy me that the damage was not careless or intentional.
The landlord has provided an invoice for this work.
This claim is proved, and I award $191.50 (including GST) for this claim. Repair and repaint damage to walls and door frames:
The landlord is also claiming for the damage to the walls and door frames. The tenant accepts that the damage was caused during the tenancy and says it was most likely caused when she was moving in or out of the premises.
The landlord has provided a quotation to repaint and repair the walls of $713.00 (including GST). The landlord said the work has not been performed.
As set out above, the premises have been relet for the same amount of rent. Therefore, the damage to the walls has not affected the landlord’s ability to rent the premises and I am not satisfied that the landlord intends to have the walls repaired. For this reason, I do not consider it is reasonable to award the sum sought.
This claim is dismissed. Refit under-bench bin and curtains:
The tenant advises that the under-bench bin was accidentally packed and removed with her belongings. The tenant further advised that she posted this item back to the landlord. The landlord confirms that it received the bin but that it incurred a fee to refit it.
The landlord is also claiming for the curtains to be reattached. The tenant acknowledges that the curtain had come away from the railing and said she did not notice this damage.
The landlord has provided an invoice showing the fee to refit the rubbish bin, to refit the curtain and to assess other damage that was not claimed for was $184.00 including GST. I accept that most of this work was to refit the bin and reattach the curtain and for the contractor’s attendance at the property.
This claim is proved, and I award 90% of this invoice: $165.60 (including GST).
Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Karen Devereux has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4912245 — net $1,843.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Stone bench repair	$373.75	Stone bench repair
Replacement of heat pump remote control	$138.00	Replacement of heat pump remote control
Repair of damaged wardrobe	$191.50	Repair of damaged wardrobe
Refit under bench bin and curtain	$165.60	Refit under bench bin and curtain
Costs associated with ending of fixed term tenancy early	$975.00	Costs associated with ending of fixed term tenancy early
Net award	$1,843.85
Bond	$2,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,843.85

Order

Cecile Elsing to pay Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Karen Devereux $1,843.85 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 (6513420-001) immediately apportioned as follows: Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Karen Devereux: $1,843.85 Cecile Elsing: $156.15
The application for damage to the walls is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in person and the tenant attended the hearing by telephone.
The landlord has applied for compensation, costs associated with the tenant ending the fixed-term tenancy early, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Early termination of fixed term tenancy:
The tenancy agreement provides that the tenancy was for a fixed term of 18 months, starting on 24 November 2023 and ending on 23 May 2025.
The tenant ended the tenancy early, on 28 March 2024, because she was struggling to afford the rent.
The landlord advised the property was relet within approximately one week. The replacement tenancy was for a fixed term to March 2025. The weekly rent for the replacement fixed term was for the same amount as the tenant was paying.
The landlord is claiming the following costs which it says it incurred because of the tenant ending the fixed-term tenancy early: Advertising costs $158.90 Viewing for prospective tenants$265.30 Background & credit checks on prospective tenants$34.50 Screening of applications and reference$90.00 Completing tenancy agreement$90.00 Ingoing and vacating inspections$111.30 Administration costs $225.00 TOTAL: $975.00
At the hearing, the landlord confirmed that Karen Devereux has paid these costs. The tenant disputes the amount charged saying the hourly rate of $90.00 charged by the management company was too high.
Section 44A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that landlords are entitled to recover the reasonable costs of accepting the surrender of a tenancy. Section 44A(2) of the RTA provides that the landlord must first generate an invoice for the costs and send the invoice to the tenant. The landlord has provided evidence that an invoice was generated and sent to the tenant.
I do not accept the tenant’s assertion that the management company’s charge of $90 per hour is excessive.
This claim is proved, and I award the sum of $975.00 (including GST).

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provide that 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. Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 tenancy agreement provides that the premises were not insured.
The landlord asserts that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Chip to stone bench top; b. Replacement of heat pump remote control; c. Replacement of damaged wardrobe centre shelf rail; d. Repairs and repaint of scratches to walls and door frames; and e. Refit of under bench rubbish bin and curtain. Stone bench top:
The tenant admits that the damage to the stone bench top occurred during the tenancy but says she should not be liable for it because it was caused by the shelf in the overhead cupboard becoming loose and falling on the bench top.
The landlord says the shelf was securely fitted at the start of the tenancy and it broke because the tenant overloaded it. The landlord also disputes whether the shelf caused the damage to the bench top saying it would be unlikely to fall out and land on the bench as described by the tenant.
As set out in paragraph 11 above, once the landlord has proved that the damage occurred during the tenancy, the burden of proof falls on the tenant to prove that the damage was not careless or intentional.
The standard of proof that applies is the balance of probabilities. That means that the party who has the burden of prove must prove that what they are claiming is more likely than not. To put that into a mathematical context, the burden is just over the 50% probability mark.
The tenant acknowledges that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and this is supported by the photographs in the pre-tenancy inspection report. The tenant has not satisfied me that the damage was not careless or intentional. I consider it is unlikely that the damage would have occurred by the shelf falling out of the cupboard as described by the tenant.
The landlord has provided an invoice for this work.
This claim is proved, and I award $373.75 (including GST) for this claim. Replacement of heat pump remote control:
The landlord says at the end of the tenancy the back of the remote control was missing leaving the batteries exposed. The landlord says they tried to get a replacement part for the remote control but were unable to do so and had to replace it.
The tenant acknowledges that part from the remote control went missing during the tenancy. However, she does not believe she should be liable for the replacement cost because the remote control still worked.
I find it was reasonable for the landlord to replace the remote control.
The landlord has provided an invoice for this work.
This claim is proved, and I award $138.00 (including GST) for this claim. Replacement of damaged wardrobe centre shelf rail:
The landlord says the rail was damaged because the tenant overloaded the shelf in the wardrobe with her belongings. The tenant says the issue was the shelf was fixed to a stud/wooden frame meaning it was not fit for purposed.
The landlord advised that she believed the damage was caused by the tenant overloading the shelf because: the contractor told her the shelf was overloaded; and because in a further inspection, after the repair had taken place, the landlord saw that the shelf was overloaded again.
I asked why if the shelf was overloaded again, it did not break a further time. The landlord said this was because as part of the repair the contractor had needed to reinforce the attachment to the wall.
The tenant has failed to satisfy me that the damage was not careless or intentional.
The landlord has provided an invoice for this work.
This claim is proved, and I award $191.50 (including GST) for this claim. Repair and repaint damage to walls and door frames:
The landlord is also claiming for the damage to the walls and door frames. The tenant accepts that the damage was caused during the tenancy and says it was most likely caused when she was moving in or out of the premises.
The landlord has provided a quotation to repaint and repair the walls of $713.00 (including GST). The landlord said the work has not been performed.
As set out above, the premises have been relet for the same amount of rent. Therefore, the damage to the walls has not affected the landlord’s ability to rent the premises and I am not satisfied that the landlord intends to have the walls repaired. For this reason, I do not consider it is reasonable to award the sum sought.
This claim is dismissed. Refit under-bench bin and curtains:
The tenant advises that the under-bench bin was accidentally packed and removed with her belongings. The tenant further advised that she posted this item back to the landlord. The landlord confirms that it received the bin but that it incurred a fee to refit it.
The landlord is also claiming for the curtains to be reattached. The tenant acknowledges that the curtain had come away from the railing and said she did not notice this damage.
The landlord has provided an invoice showing the fee to refit the rubbish bin, to refit the curtain and to assess other damage that was not claimed for was $184.00 including GST. I accept that most of this work was to refit the bin and reattach the curtain and for the contractor’s attendance at the property.
This claim is proved, and I award 90% of this invoice: $165.60 (including GST).
Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Karen Devereux has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4912245 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1108, 20 Park Avenue, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4912245 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 1108, 20 Park Avenue, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051,

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