What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4968293?

The tribunal order states: Ola Anwar Al-jelany must pay A1 Property Managers Limited $719.75 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4968293?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $442.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4968293?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4968293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11040640-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4968293?

The tribunal order states: Ola Anwar Al-jelany must pay A1 Property Managers Limited $719.75 from the

How much money was awarded in case 4968293?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $442.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4968293?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4968293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11040640-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 4, 361 Madras Street, Christchurch Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4968293 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4968293. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning/Repair (excess	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning/Repair (excess
Repairs	$442.75	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Bond	$719.75

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by Mai Morod, as pre-approved.

The landlord has applied for compensation from 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 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.

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.

“Fair wear” is deterioration caused by the reasonable use of the premises. “Fair tear” is deterioration caused by the ordinary operation of the forces of nature. Importantly, intentional or careless damage are not fair wear and tear. The landlord must prove that damage is beyond fair wear and tear for compensation.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Carpet staining. There was significant staining of carpet in the living room. The landlord incurred an excess of $250.00 in having it dealt with under an insurance claim. That is lesser than any full cost of cleaning/repair and the excess of $250.00 is awarded in full. b. Wall repairs. There were numerous small holes on walls. Prior to the tenancy ending, the tenant with assistance, plastered the holes. This was done on a belief that advice from Tenancy Services meant the actual holes or dents in the wall were fair wear and tear. Ms Morod was involved throughout this period assisting the tenant and she stated they were also advised by Tenancy Services that some plastering of the damage might be worthwhile. That they did. The result was that numerous small areas of damage were presented as white patched/plastered areas on the walls. The landlord stated the claims (and invoiced effort) were only for the areas not considered wear and tear. The landlord was left in a difficult position. Untouched, the damage may have been assessable by me as being fair wear and tear, or greater. As presented, the repaired areas are obvious white patches. For the landlord to need to attend to these seems reasonable. I have considered the respective submissions and evidence and concluded the invoice as presented is a reasonable cost to return the walls to a complete state. That invoiced cost, in my view, is reduced from what it might have been without the prior effort of the tenant in patching. I award the invoice cost as claimed, being $442.75.

I am satisfied the damage leading to the patching is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have considered betterment and depreciation but consider no application exists here. 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. .

Because A1 Property Managers Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4968293. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning/Repair (excess	$250.00	Carpet Cleaning/Repair (excess
Repairs	$442.75	Repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Bond	$719.75

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by Mai Morod, as pre-approved.

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

I am satisfied the damage leading to the patching is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because A1 Property Managers Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4968293 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 4, 361 Madras Street, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4968293 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 4, 361 Madras Street, Christchurch Central,

At a glance

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

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