What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4931936?

The tribunal order states: Mahamed Osman to pay Utrust Property Management Limited $1,575.00 from

How much money was awarded in case 4931936?

Painting: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Brick Wall: $575.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4931936?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4931936?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10991528-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4931936?

The tribunal order states: Mahamed Osman to pay Utrust Property Management Limited $1,575.00 from

How much money was awarded in case 4931936?

Painting: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Brick Wall: $575.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4931936?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4931936?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10991528-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Capricorn Place, Rototuna North, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4931936 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4931936 — net $1,575.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Brick Wall	$575.00	ntial evidence to the contrary from the tenant and the tenant is ordered to pay $575.00.
Painting	$1,000.00	th betterment and depreciation taken into account, the tenant is ordered to pay $1,000.00.
Net award	$1,575.00
Bond	$2,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,575.00

Both parties attended the video hearing on 23 October 2024.

The landlord has applied for compensation, 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.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA 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) RTA. The landlord is not insured for tenant damage .

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.

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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:

The owner says that the tenant damaged a letter box. The cost to replace is $1,265.00 for two small simple letterboxes.

The owner’s property manager said that she was told by the owner that the tenant had admitted damaging the letterbox. The tenant denies having said this. The tenant said that he told the owner that the letterbox had been damaged and in fact suspected a neighbouring tenant of having damaged it.

The landlord has proven that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has disproven liability as he said that he did not damage the letterbox. I have no direct evidence from the owner to the contrary. The owner did not attend the hearing or provide a statement. The claim is dismissed.

An external brick wall adjoining the garage was damaged during the tenancy and the tenant accepts liability for the damage. The landlord has provided photos of the damage and an invoice for $575.00. The tenant says that the invoice is too expensive. I have no substantial evidence to the contrary from the tenant and the tenant is ordered to pay $575.00.

The tenancy commenced in August 2016. The tenant said that no painting work has been carried out by the landlord since that time.

The landlord provided photos of the tenancy which show areas where the tenant has undertaken painting himself. The work is not to a workmanlike standard. The landlord has had to have a number of areas in the house repainted. The photos show that this was justified. The invoice for the work is $5,175.00.

In setting the amount of compensation, I have taken into account 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The “life expectancy“ of paint work in tenanted premises is at best 10- 12 years. These premises have not been repainted for at least 8 years. With betterment and depreciation taken into account, the tenant is ordered to pay $1,000.00.

The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee or name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4931936 — net $1,575.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Brick Wall	$575.00	ntial evidence to the contrary from the tenant and the tenant is ordered to pay $575.00.
Painting	$1,000.00	th betterment and depreciation taken into account, the tenant is ordered to pay $1,000.00.
Net award	$1,575.00
Bond	$2,160.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,575.00

Order

Mahamed Osman to pay Utrust Property Management Limited $1,575.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 (5959556-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Utrust Property Management Limited: $1,575.00 Mahamed Osman: $585.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 23 October 2024.
The landlord has applied for compensation, 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.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA 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) RTA. The landlord is not insured for tenant damage .
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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy:
The owner says that the tenant damaged a letter box. The cost to replace is $1,265.00 for two small simple letterboxes.
The owner’s property manager said that she was told by the owner that the tenant had admitted damaging the letterbox. The tenant denies having said this. The tenant said that he told the owner that the letterbox had been damaged and in fact suspected a neighbouring tenant of having damaged it.
The landlord has proven that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has disproven liability as he said that he did not damage the letterbox. I have no direct evidence from the owner to the contrary. The owner did not attend the hearing or provide a statement. The claim is dismissed.
An external brick wall adjoining the garage was damaged during the tenancy and the tenant accepts liability for the damage. The landlord has provided photos of the damage and an invoice for $575.00. The tenant says that the invoice is too expensive. I have no substantial evidence to the contrary from the tenant and the tenant is ordered to pay $575.00.
The tenancy commenced in August 2016. The tenant said that no painting work has been carried out by the landlord since that time.
The landlord provided photos of the tenancy which show areas where the tenant has undertaken painting himself. The work is not to a workmanlike standard. The landlord has had to have a number of areas in the house repainted. The photos show that this was justified. The invoice for the work is $5,175.00.
In setting the amount of compensation, I have taken into account 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, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The “life expectancy“ of paint work in tenanted premises is at best 10- 12 years. These premises have not been repainted for at least 8 years. With betterment and depreciation taken into account, the tenant is ordered to pay $1,000.00.
The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and I make no order for reimbursement of the filing fee or name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4931936 — Property damage at 2 Capricorn Place, Rototuna North, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4931936 — Property damage at 2 Capricorn Place, Rototuna North, Hamilton 3210

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