What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4991110?

The tribunal order states: The tenant has been careless and caused damage to a garage door. However,

How much money was awarded in case 4991110?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4991110?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4991110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11634325-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4991110?

The tribunal order states: The tenant has been careless and caused damage to a garage door. However,

How much money was awarded in case 4991110?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4991110?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4991110?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11634325-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

157 Reeves Road, Pakuranga Heights, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4991110 — Property damage

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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.

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 tenant acknowledges that she caused damage during the tenancy to the garage door. The tenant accidentally reversed into the garage door damaging one of the arms of the door.

The landlord has replaced the garage door at the cost of $2530.00. The landlord believes that the tenant should pay some costs towards the replacement of the garage door.

The landlord did not have insurance at the time of the accident but says she would be happy if the tenant paid the equivalent of excess of $700.00.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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 garage was built at the same time as the house in the 1970’s. The landlord does not know if the garage door was original. Assuming that it was the original, that would make the door over 50 years of age. According to the IRD depreciation rate the garage is beyond its economic life. While the garage door may have still had a use beyond its expired economic life, there is no residual value in the garage door.

For these reasons I am not awarding the landlord any costs towards the replacement garage door.

Because Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For New Zealand Sj Real Estate Company Limited has not been succeeded with the claim I cannot reimburse the filing fee.

Order

The tenant has been careless and caused damage to a garage door. However, due to the age of the garage door and the fact that it is beyond its economic life, I can not award any costs for the replacement garage door.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

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.
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 tenant acknowledges that she caused damage during the tenancy to the garage door. The tenant accidentally reversed into the garage door damaging one of the arms of the door.
The landlord has replaced the garage door at the cost of $2530.00. The landlord believes that the tenant should pay some costs towards the replacement of the garage door.
The landlord did not have insurance at the time of the accident but says she would be happy if the tenant paid the equivalent of excess of $700.00.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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 garage was built at the same time as the house in the 1970’s. The landlord does not know if the garage door was original. Assuming that it was the original, that would make the door over 50 years of age. According to the IRD depreciation rate the garage is beyond its economic life. While the garage door may have still had a use beyond its expired economic life, there is no residual value in the garage door.
For these reasons I am not awarding the landlord any costs towards the replacement garage door.
Because Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For New Zealand Sj Real Estate Company Limited has not been succeeded with the claim I cannot reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4991110 — Property damage at 157 Reeves Road, Pakuranga Heights, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4991110 — Property damage at 157 Reeves Road, Pakuranga Heights, Auckland 2010

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