What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4940958?

The tribunal order states: Nikhil Erragari and Ramya Guntaka must pay Iron Bridge Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4940958?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940958?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940958?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10967344-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4940958?

The tribunal order states: Nikhil Erragari and Ramya Guntaka must pay Iron Bridge Property Management

How much money was awarded in case 4940958?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940958?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940958?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10967344-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

328 Halswell Junction Road, Christchurch 8025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4940958 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4940958 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Ceramic cooktop (insurance excess	$750.00	Ceramic cooktop (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$777.00

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Ms Rock and Ms Yates attended for the landlord. Both tenants also attended.

The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to a ceramic gas cooktop and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Tenants must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.

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).

The landlord produced photographs showing a chip on one side of the ceramic glass cooktop. The cooktop is gas, not induction. The chip is noticeable, and it detracts from the appearance of the cooktop which is relatively new.

The landlords produced evidence that a replacement cooktop will cost $2,200. It is covered by insurance with an excess of $750. The landlords limit their claim to the excess amount.

The tenancy ended on 27 June 2024. The tenants vacated on 22 June although they were not staying at premises after 20 June. Their cleaners came to the premises on 20 June and cleaned them. The tenants said that they are not aware of when or how the damage occurred. They suggested that possibly the cleaners caused the damage. The cleaners deny that.

I note that if the cleaners carelessly caused the damage, the tenants would be liable because they were in the premises with the tenants’ consent.

There was a routine inspection on 31 May and the damage was not seen then.

The final inspection took place on 1 July and that is when the landlord noticed the damage.

Both sides said that no one entered the premises between 22 June and 1 July.

The tenants said that if they had damaged the cooktop, they would have taken responsibility for it.

I find that the damage occurred during the tenancy. It was not there at the start of the tenancy and there is no evidence that it could have occurred after the tenancy ended and before the inspection on 1 July.

The tenants said that the damage is fair wear and tear. I don’t accept that. This type of damage should not occur due to ordinary and reasonably careful use of the premises.

I find that the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. I think it is unlikely that the cleaners caused it but if they did, it would still be tenants’ responsibility. The tenants have not offered any other explanation for the damage. The most likely cause of the damage is that someone dropped something heavy, such as a cooking pot, onto the cooktop.

The landlords said that it was not possible to repair the damage and I accept that. There was no evidence to the contrary and I am not aware of any commercially available repair service for this type of damage.

I find that it is reasonable for the landlord to replace the cooktop. It and the premises are relatively new, and the damage is unsightly and might possibly cause someone an injury due to the sharp edge of the chip.

It follows that the landlord is entitled to compensation in the sum of $750 from the tenants.

The landlord has succeeded and so the tenants must pay the filing fee.

The tenants are paying off some rent arrears and so I would hope that the parties can agree on a payment arrangement for this liability as well.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4940958 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Ceramic cooktop (insurance excess	$750.00	Ceramic cooktop (insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$777.00

Order

Nikhil Erragari and Ramya Guntaka must pay Iron Bridge Property Management Limited as Agent for R & H Thapar $777.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Ms Rock and Ms Yates attended for the landlord. Both tenants also attended.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage to a ceramic gas cooktop and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Tenants must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
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).
The landlord produced photographs showing a chip on one side of the ceramic glass cooktop. The cooktop is gas, not induction. The chip is noticeable, and it detracts from the appearance of the cooktop which is relatively new.
The landlords produced evidence that a replacement cooktop will cost $2,200. It is covered by insurance with an excess of $750. The landlords limit their claim to the excess amount.
The tenancy ended on 27 June 2024. The tenants vacated on 22 June although they were not staying at premises after 20 June. Their cleaners came to the premises on 20 June and cleaned them. The tenants said that they are not aware of when or how the damage occurred. They suggested that possibly the cleaners caused the damage. The cleaners deny that.
I note that if the cleaners carelessly caused the damage, the tenants would be liable because they were in the premises with the tenants’ consent.
There was a routine inspection on 31 May and the damage was not seen then.
The final inspection took place on 1 July and that is when the landlord noticed the damage.
Both sides said that no one entered the premises between 22 June and 1 July.
The tenants said that if they had damaged the cooktop, they would have taken responsibility for it.
I find that the damage occurred during the tenancy. It was not there at the start of the tenancy and there is no evidence that it could have occurred after the tenancy ended and before the inspection on 1 July.
The tenants said that the damage is fair wear and tear. I don’t accept that. This type of damage should not occur due to ordinary and reasonably careful use of the premises.
I find that the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. I think it is unlikely that the cleaners caused it but if they did, it would still be tenants’ responsibility. The tenants have not offered any other explanation for the damage. The most likely cause of the damage is that someone dropped something heavy, such as a cooking pot, onto the cooktop.
The landlords said that it was not possible to repair the damage and I accept that. There was no evidence to the contrary and I am not aware of any commercially available repair service for this type of damage.
I find that it is reasonable for the landlord to replace the cooktop. It and the premises are relatively new, and the damage is unsightly and might possibly cause someone an injury due to the sharp edge of the chip.
It follows that the landlord is entitled to compensation in the sum of $750 from the tenants.
The landlord has succeeded and so the tenants must pay the filing fee.
The tenants are paying off some rent arrears and so I would hope that the parties can agree on a payment arrangement for this liability as well.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940958 — Property damage at 328 Halswell Junction Road, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940958 — Property damage at 328 Halswell Junction Road, Christchurch 8025

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions