What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4968995?

The tribunal order states: Giang Tra Nguyen to pay Katrina Anne Jenner, Nicholas William Jenner &

How much money was awarded in case 4968995?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4968995?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4968995?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11145701-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4968995?

The tribunal order states: Giang Tra Nguyen to pay Katrina Anne Jenner, Nicholas William Jenner &

How much money was awarded in case 4968995?

Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4968995?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4968995?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11145701-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 105, 2 Dockside Lane, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4968995 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4968995 — net $250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess on fire damage claim	$250.00	Insurance excess on fire damage claim
Net award	$250.00
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$250.00

Order

Giang Tra Nguyen to pay Katrina Anne Jenner, Nicholas William Jenner & Antony Noel Hanlon as trustees for The N & K Jenner Family Trust $250.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (5629632-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Katrina Anne Jenner, Nicholas William Jenner & Antony Noel Hanlon as trustees for The N & K Jenner Family Trust: $250.00 Giang Tra Tra Nguyen: $2,230.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by her support person Mr Bank. Ms Jenner represented the landlord trustees.
The landlord has applied for payment of the insurance excess on a fire damage claim - $10,000.00.
The tenant seeks payment of her bond. Background
The tenancy started on 18 December 2023. The premises are in a Unit Title development. The tenancy ended after a fire at the premises on 14 June 2024.
The tenancy agreement recorded the landlord’s insurance details. The stated excess for damage covered by the landlord’s insurer was $250.00.
Neither the landlord nor the tenant knew that the insurance excess had in fact increased to $10,000.00 after the expiry of the insurance certificate for the 2019-2020 year. For that reason, the stated excess in the tenancy agreement was wrong.
The landlord (Ms Jenner as one of the trustees of the Trust that owns this unit) only became aware of the increased excess following the fire. The property manager of the Unit Title development advised her of that.
The repair cost damage to the unit well exceeds the insurance excess of $10,000.00. Issue
What is the extent of the tenant’s liability – the stated insurance excess of $250.00 or the increased excess of $10,000.00? Relevant legal considerations
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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
Section 13A(2) RTA provides: (2) The landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a) if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b) if the premises are insured, a statement— (i) setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii) informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)). (3) If a tenant under a tenancy agreement that was entered into before subsection (2) comes into force requests the landlord to provide the information referred to in that subsection, the landlord must, within a reasonable time after receiving the request, provide the information in writing to the tenant. (4) If anything changes so that the information that was included in the tenancy agreement in accordance with subsection (2) or that was provided in accordance with subsection (3) or this subsection is no longer correct, the landlord must provide the correct information in writing to the tenant within a reasonable time after the landlord becomes aware of the change. Discussion
The damage the tenant caused was careless damage; it was not an accident as she suggested it was.
What then is her liability? That question is easily answered because section 49B(3)(a) RTA prescribes it. The tenant is liable for the lesser of the insurance excess or 4 weeks’ rent.
Section 13A(2) RTA is also prescriptive. It states that a landlord must set out the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises the amount of the excess that is relevant to the liability. And, if anything changes, the landlord must provide the correct information to the tenant within a reasonable time.
The intent of these sections is so a tenant is made fully aware of their liability at the start of a tenancy, or during it, if anything changes.
The statutory provisions were included in an information format in the Tenancy Services precedent tenancy agreement the landlord used in this case at clause 13.
Here, the tenancy agreement is quite clear: the stated insurance excess is $250.00.
The landlord’s frustration is understandable. She (the trustees) was/were never advised of the considerable increase in the insurance excess until after the fire. So, she was unable to update the insurance information as section 13A(2)(4) RTA requires. That change apparently took effect after the insurance certificate the landlord relied on expired in 2020.
But that does not shift liability to the tenant. She was entitled to rely on the disclosure of the insurance information in the tenancy agreement, which was never updated after the change. This is important. If the tenant had been advised of the change she might have elected to find another tenancy.
Though frustrating for the landlord, who did nothing wrong in the sense that the trustees were never informed by the Body Corporate of the change to the insurance excess, the Tribunal cannot find the tenant liable for the insurance excess of $10,000.00.
The tenant’s liability is limited to the insurance excess as disclosed in the tenancy agreement which was never updated after the change to the excess, for the reasons mentioned.
The landlord’s application for payment of the $10,000.00 insurance excess must be dismissed. The tenant’s liability is limited to $250.00 by operation of the sections of the RTA to which I have referred.
The landlord’s remedy might lie elsewhere, but the Tribunal is not an advisory body. Result
The tenant must pay the landlord $250.00 being the insurance excess on the landlord’s insurance policy as notified to her for the careless damage she caused.
The bond will be split between the parties - $250.00 to the landlord and $2,230.00 to the tenant.
Neither party sought a name suppression order.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4968995 — net $250.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Insurance excess on fire damage claim	$250.00	Insurance excess on fire damage claim
Net award	$250.00
Bond	$2,480.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$250.00

Order

Giang Tra Nguyen to pay Katrina Anne Jenner, Nicholas William Jenner & Antony Noel Hanlon as trustees for The N & K Jenner Family Trust $250.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 (5629632-002) immediately apportioned as follows: Katrina Anne Jenner, Nicholas William Jenner & Antony Noel Hanlon as trustees for The N & K Jenner Family Trust: $250.00 Giang Tra Tra Nguyen: $2,230.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was assisted by her support person Mr Bank. Ms Jenner represented the landlord trustees.
The landlord has applied for payment of the insurance excess on a fire damage claim - $10,000.00.
The tenant seeks payment of her bond. Background
The tenancy started on 18 December 2023. The premises are in a Unit Title development. The tenancy ended after a fire at the premises on 14 June 2024.
The tenancy agreement recorded the landlord’s insurance details. The stated excess for damage covered by the landlord’s insurer was $250.00.
Neither the landlord nor the tenant knew that the insurance excess had in fact increased to $10,000.00 after the expiry of the insurance certificate for the 2019-2020 year. For that reason, the stated excess in the tenancy agreement was wrong.
The landlord (Ms Jenner as one of the trustees of the Trust that owns this unit) only became aware of the increased excess following the fire. The property manager of the Unit Title development advised her of that.
The repair cost damage to the unit well exceeds the insurance excess of $10,000.00. Issue
What is the extent of the tenant’s liability – the stated insurance excess of $250.00 or the increased excess of $10,000.00? Relevant legal considerations
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 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
Section 13A(2) RTA provides: (2) The landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a) if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b) if the premises are insured, a statement— (i) setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii) informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)). (3) If a tenant under a tenancy agreement that was entered into before subsection (2) comes into force requests the landlord to provide the information referred to in that subsection, the landlord must, within a reasonable time after receiving the request, provide the information in writing to the tenant. (4) If anything changes so that the information that was included in the tenancy agreement in accordance with subsection (2) or that was provided in accordance with subsection (3) or this subsection is no longer correct, the landlord must provide the correct information in writing to the tenant within a reasonable time after the landlord becomes aware of the change. Discussion
The damage the tenant caused was careless damage; it was not an accident as she suggested it was.
What then is her liability? That question is easily answered because section 49B(3)(a) RTA prescribes it. The tenant is liable for the lesser of the insurance excess or 4 weeks’ rent.
Section 13A(2) RTA is also prescriptive. It states that a landlord must set out the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises the amount of the excess that is relevant to the liability. And, if anything changes, the landlord must provide the correct information to the tenant within a reasonable time.
The intent of these sections is so a tenant is made fully aware of their liability at the start of a tenancy, or during it, if anything changes.
The statutory provisions were included in an information format in the Tenancy Services precedent tenancy agreement the landlord used in this case at clause 13.
Here, the tenancy agreement is quite clear: the stated insurance excess is $250.00.
The landlord’s frustration is understandable. She (the trustees) was/were never advised of the considerable increase in the insurance excess until after the fire. So, she was unable to update the insurance information as section 13A(2)(4) RTA requires. That change apparently took effect after the insurance certificate the landlord relied on expired in 2020.
But that does not shift liability to the tenant. She was entitled to rely on the disclosure of the insurance information in the tenancy agreement, which was never updated after the change. This is important. If the tenant had been advised of the change she might have elected to find another tenancy.
Though frustrating for the landlord, who did nothing wrong in the sense that the trustees were never informed by the Body Corporate of the change to the insurance excess, the Tribunal cannot find the tenant liable for the insurance excess of $10,000.00.
The tenant’s liability is limited to the insurance excess as disclosed in the tenancy agreement which was never updated after the change to the excess, for the reasons mentioned.
The landlord’s application for payment of the $10,000.00 insurance excess must be dismissed. The tenant’s liability is limited to $250.00 by operation of the sections of the RTA to which I have referred.
The landlord’s remedy might lie elsewhere, but the Tribunal is not an advisory body. Result
The tenant must pay the landlord $250.00 being the insurance excess on the landlord’s insurance policy as notified to her for the careless damage she caused.
The bond will be split between the parties - $250.00 to the landlord and $2,230.00 to the tenant.
Neither party sought a name suppression order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4968995 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 105, 2 Dockside Lane, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4968995 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 105, 2 Dockside Lane, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions