What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4924653?

The tribunal order states: Steven Patrick Bruce Kirby must pay Louis Marco $1,677.98 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4924653?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $731.98 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $925.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4924653?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4924653?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10759478-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4924653?

The tribunal order states: Steven Patrick Bruce Kirby must pay Louis Marco $1,677.98 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4924653?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $731.98 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $925.56 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4924653?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4924653?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10759478-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Alker Road, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4924653 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4924653 — net $1,677.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 29 April 2024 to 16 May 2024	$925.56	Rent arrears 29 April 2024 to 16 May 2024
Repairs to garage door	$731.98	Repairs to garage door
Reimbursement of filing fee	$20.44	Reimbursement of filing fee
Net award	$1,677.98
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,677.98

Order

Steven Patrick Bruce Kirby must pay Louis Marco $1,677.98 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by video conference. The landlord joined at the scheduled time, but the tenant did not.
On 26 April 2024, the Tribunal awarded the landlord rent arrears to 28 April 2024, and terminated the tenancy effective 12 May 2024 (NZTT 4855670). On 27 April 2024, the landlord applied for an attachment to the tenant’s wages, which was granted. Since 06 May 2024, the landlord has been receiving weekly payments of $30.00. The most recent payment was received on 26 August 2024. These payments will continue until the debt ordered in that decision is settled. Any amount ordered today is separate and will not be combined. The landlord may apply to the tenant’s current employer to have any additional amount ordered either combined under present attachment order, or the landlord may enforce it separately in some other way.
On 25 June 2024, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears owing to the end of the tenancy, and for damage to a garage door.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Rent
The landlord states that the tenant delayed vacating the property, and eventually did so on 16 May 2024. The landlord seeks unpaid rent from 29 August 2024 to the end of the tenancy on 16 May 2024. The rent was $51.42 per day. The tenant remained an additional 18 days after 28 April 2024. Apart from one payment of $30.00, which as stated was attributed to the rent debt ordered on 26 April 2024, the tenant made no further rent payments. Accordingly, the landlord is awarded 18 days rent at the rate of $51.42 per day, totalling $925.56. Garage door.
The property has four bedrooms. The landlord rents the property room by room. The tenant’s tenancy included the master bedroom and ensuite, and exclusive use of the internal double garage for parking. None of the other tenant’s were allowed to park in the garage. The other tenants only accessed the garage to use the laundry via an internal door. The second claim made by the landlord is for damage to the garage door, which is operated by an electric motor. The landlord states that the door was in working condition at the commencement of the tenancy and that the tenant had the only remote.
The landlord has produced a photograph sent by another tenant on 26 June 2023 showing the door damaged. Another photograph taken by the landlord in October 2023, shows one of the support members has been cracked. The landlord states that when challenged the tenant admitted to causing the damage, stating that their vehicle had not been parked fully in the garage, and that the door had caught on the exhaust. The landlord states that the tenant advised that they had attempted to repair the damage. The landlord states that along with the door the motor was also damaged. The landlord submits that the damage was the result of a careless act. The landlord has insurance for damage caused by tenants although the excess is in this case more than the amount claimed. A garage technician attended the property twice before recommending replacement of the motor. The landlord has produced the invoice to replace the motor and supply two new remotes. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the door was damaged during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. I am satisfied that the garage formed part of the tenancy and that the garage door was the tenant’s sole responsibility. I accept the landlord’s submission that the damage was likely the result of a careless act on the part of the tenant.
One of the emails between the garage door technician and the landlord replacing the existing motor with a “heavier duty and upgraded version,” which was done at a cost of $1,092.50. As the landlord replaced the motor with an upgraded model, awarding the full amount, would therefore result in betterment. Therefore, I have reduced the amount claimed by one third and award $ 731.98. Costs.
Because Louis Marco has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
There has been no application for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4924653 — net $1,677.98 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears 29 April 2024 to 16 May 2024	$925.56	Rent arrears 29 April 2024 to 16 May 2024
Repairs to garage door	$731.98	Repairs to garage door
Reimbursement of filing fee	$20.44	Reimbursement of filing fee
Net award	$1,677.98
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,677.98

Order

Steven Patrick Bruce Kirby must pay Louis Marco $1,677.98 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by video conference. The landlord joined at the scheduled time, but the tenant did not.
On 26 April 2024, the Tribunal awarded the landlord rent arrears to 28 April 2024, and terminated the tenancy effective 12 May 2024 (NZTT 4855670). On 27 April 2024, the landlord applied for an attachment to the tenant’s wages, which was granted. Since 06 May 2024, the landlord has been receiving weekly payments of $30.00. The most recent payment was received on 26 August 2024. These payments will continue until the debt ordered in that decision is settled. Any amount ordered today is separate and will not be combined. The landlord may apply to the tenant’s current employer to have any additional amount ordered either combined under present attachment order, or the landlord may enforce it separately in some other way.
On 25 June 2024, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears owing to the end of the tenancy, and for damage to a garage door.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Rent
The landlord states that the tenant delayed vacating the property, and eventually did so on 16 May 2024. The landlord seeks unpaid rent from 29 August 2024 to the end of the tenancy on 16 May 2024. The rent was $51.42 per day. The tenant remained an additional 18 days after 28 April 2024. Apart from one payment of $30.00, which as stated was attributed to the rent debt ordered on 26 April 2024, the tenant made no further rent payments. Accordingly, the landlord is awarded 18 days rent at the rate of $51.42 per day, totalling $925.56. Garage door.
The property has four bedrooms. The landlord rents the property room by room. The tenant’s tenancy included the master bedroom and ensuite, and exclusive use of the internal double garage for parking. None of the other tenant’s were allowed to park in the garage. The other tenants only accessed the garage to use the laundry via an internal door. The second claim made by the landlord is for damage to the garage door, which is operated by an electric motor. The landlord states that the door was in working condition at the commencement of the tenancy and that the tenant had the only remote.
The landlord has produced a photograph sent by another tenant on 26 June 2023 showing the door damaged. Another photograph taken by the landlord in October 2023, shows one of the support members has been cracked. The landlord states that when challenged the tenant admitted to causing the damage, stating that their vehicle had not been parked fully in the garage, and that the door had caught on the exhaust. The landlord states that the tenant advised that they had attempted to repair the damage. The landlord states that along with the door the motor was also damaged. The landlord submits that the damage was the result of a careless act. The landlord has insurance for damage caused by tenants although the excess is in this case more than the amount claimed. A garage technician attended the property twice before recommending replacement of the motor. The landlord has produced the invoice to replace the motor and supply two new remotes. Law
To succeed with a claim for damage the landlord must prove that damage 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 of the Act.
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA).
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must also consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the door was damaged during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. I am satisfied that the garage formed part of the tenancy and that the garage door was the tenant’s sole responsibility. I accept the landlord’s submission that the damage was likely the result of a careless act on the part of the tenant.
One of the emails between the garage door technician and the landlord replacing the existing motor with a “heavier duty and upgraded version,” which was done at a cost of $1,092.50. As the landlord replaced the motor with an upgraded model, awarding the full amount, would therefore result in betterment. Therefore, I have reduced the amount claimed by one third and award $ 731.98. Costs.
Because Louis Marco has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
There has been no application for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4924653 — Rent arrears at 12 Alker Road, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4924653 — Rent arrears at 12 Alker Road, Chartwell, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions