What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4953681?

The tribunal order states: Yanfang Hu to pay Property Brokers West Coast Limited As Agent For F P

How much money was awarded in case 4953681?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953681?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11387077-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4953681?

The tribunal order states: Yanfang Hu to pay Property Brokers West Coast Limited As Agent For F P

How much money was awarded in case 4953681?

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

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4953681?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4953681?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11387077-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 18 Franklin Street, Greymouth, Greymouth 7805 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4953681 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953681 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace kitchen flooring: Insurance excess	$750.00	Replace kitchen flooring: Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$777.00

Yanfang Hu to pay Property Brokers West Coast Limited As Agent For F P O'Donnell $777.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $777.00 (3515709-027) to Property Brokers West Coast Limited As Agent For F P O'Donnell immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $343.00 (3515709-027) to Yanfang Hu immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The translator arranged for the tenant’s benefit was in attendance, but the tenant did not attend.

The landlord advised that the tenant had attended a mediation by telephone and was no longer living locally.

There was no request from the tenant to attend by telephone but, nevertheless, the Tribunal made three attempts to contact her and all three went straight to an engaged signal.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant also applied for a full refund of the bond in her application.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

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) under section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.

During the tenancy damage was caused, seemingly by heat, to the kitchen flooring. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The tenant, in her application, said that the floor could be repaired and she had made enquiries about having this done.

The landlord gave evidence that they had explored options of repairing the damaged area. The damage was to a section of the floor directly in front of the sink. It appeared to have been caused by a hot pot, or similar being placed directly onto the vinyl flooring.

The landlord had received advice to say that the vinyl had been discontinued and a patch with similar vinyl would be visible. The location of the damage made a patch problematic as it would be susceptible to water (being in front of the sink) and this could cause the join to fail.

Additionally, the installer advised that vinyl could only be ordered in 2m2 sections, and the entire floor was only 2.5m2 so a patch did not make economic sense.

The landlord had an insurance claim accepted for the replacement of the flooring and the excess is $750.00.

The landlord provided photographs, inspection reports, correspondence with the flooring specialists, insurance information and other evidence to support the claim.

The amount ordered is proved.

The vinyl was installed between June and December 2022 and the tenancy began in August 2023.

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. Given the flooring was approximately a year old when the tenancy began, it is not appropriate to depreciate the excess amount.

As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4953681 — net $777.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace kitchen flooring: Insurance excess	$750.00	Replace kitchen flooring: Insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$777.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$777.00

Order

Yanfang Hu to pay Property Brokers West Coast Limited As Agent For F P O'Donnell $777.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $777.00 (3515709-027) to Property Brokers West Coast Limited As Agent For F P O'Donnell immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $343.00 (3515709-027) to Yanfang Hu immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The translator arranged for the tenant’s benefit was in attendance, but the tenant did not attend.
The landlord advised that the tenant had attended a mediation by telephone and was no longer living locally.
There was no request from the tenant to attend by telephone but, nevertheless, the Tribunal made three attempts to contact her and all three went straight to an engaged signal.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant also applied for a full refund of the bond in her application.

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
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) under section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
During the tenancy damage was caused, seemingly by heat, to the kitchen flooring. The damage is more than fair wear and tear and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The tenant, in her application, said that the floor could be repaired and she had made enquiries about having this done.
The landlord gave evidence that they had explored options of repairing the damaged area. The damage was to a section of the floor directly in front of the sink. It appeared to have been caused by a hot pot, or similar being placed directly onto the vinyl flooring.
The landlord had received advice to say that the vinyl had been discontinued and a patch with similar vinyl would be visible. The location of the damage made a patch problematic as it would be susceptible to water (being in front of the sink) and this could cause the join to fail.
Additionally, the installer advised that vinyl could only be ordered in 2m2 sections, and the entire floor was only 2.5m2 so a patch did not make economic sense.
The landlord had an insurance claim accepted for the replacement of the flooring and the excess is $750.00.
The landlord provided photographs, inspection reports, correspondence with the flooring specialists, insurance information and other evidence to support the claim.
The amount ordered is proved.
The vinyl was installed between June and December 2022 and the tenancy began in August 2023.
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. Given the flooring was approximately a year old when the tenancy began, it is not appropriate to depreciate the excess amount.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953681 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4, 18 Franklin Street, Greymouth, Greymouth 7805

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4953681 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 4, 18 Franklin Street, Greymouth, Greymouth 7805

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