What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5000052?

The tribunal order states: Karen Nelson to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Ling

How much money was awarded in case 5000052?

Property Damage: $517.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5000052?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5000052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10888130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5000052?

The tribunal order states: Karen Nelson to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Ling

How much money was awarded in case 5000052?

Property Damage: $517.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5000052?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5000052?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10888130-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 14, 78 Orakei Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5000052 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5000052 — net $517.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$517.50	Repairs
Net award	$517.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$517.50

Order

Karen Nelson to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Ling Gao $517.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $517.50 (6446186-012) to Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Ling Gao immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of 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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the walls and carpet stains.
The Landlord claimed damage to the walls throughout the house which included black marks, holes from an entertainment unit, holes from a vacuum cleaner, damage to the inside of the hot cupboard and bedroom cupboard wall. The Landlord provided an invoice which noted these damages and some photographs of the walls at the end of the tenancy. There was no ingoing inspection report as the Landlord started managing the property after the tenancy started.
The Tenant claimed responsibility for damage to wall where she hung her vacuum cleaner, on the wall at the top of the stairs when the removalists moved furniture out and to the wall where she attached her entertainment unit. The Tenant did not agree to the damage in the inside cupboard and claimed the other parts of the wall damage were wear and tear.
The Landlord was given an opportunity after the hearing to provide evidence from the previous tenancy of the state of the property because there was no ingoing inspection report. Photographs were sent after the hearing of damage to walls however these did not indicated the location in the house or the date these photographs were taken. The landlord submitted the property was brand new before the Tenant moved in however did not provide evidence to substantiate the year the property was built or the renovations undertaken.
The Tenant produced email correspondence between the parties at the start of the tenancy where she noted the marks already in the bedroom cupboard on the walls. She also had email evidence that she took responsibility for the damage to the walls she had caused.
The Tenant claimed she was unable to enter the property to obtain a quote for the wall repairs after the tenancy ended as she felt the amount claimed by the Landlord was excessive.
The tenancy ended on or about 25 July 2024 and the Landlord had undertaken the repairs by 31 July 2024. The Landlord was not required to give the Tenant that opportunity to enter the property to obtain quotes for the repairs.
The Landlord also claimed for cleaning carpet stains and provided photographs of some stains however no evidence was provided of the initial inspection. An invoice was provided to substantiate the amount claimed.
The Tenant referred to her emails she had sent to the Landlord at the start of the tenancy which showed the stains already present.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord did not produce sufficient evidence to show the damage to the walls was caused during the tenancy because they did not present an ingoing inspection report or photographs at the start of the tenancy. The Tenant took responsibility for the damage to the wall for the vacuum cleaner which cost $345.00. The Tenant also took responsibility for the damage to the stair wall and entertainment unit wall.
The Landlord also claimed some black wall marks required removal and this had been discussed in the parties email correspondence where the Tenant claimed this was wear and tear. I do not find these black marks constitute wear and tear and therefore the Tenant is liable. The invoice does not itemise the costs for each wall damage so I find the appropriate amount the Tenant should pay for the remaining wall damage is $172.50.
In terms of the carpet, the Landlord did not provide an ingoing inspection report to indicate the carpet was without stains or brand new at the start of the tenancy. The Tenant had email evidence to show that there were carpet stains at the start of the tenancy.
Because the Landlord had insufficient evidence to prove the stains were caused during the tenancy, the claim for carpet stains is dismissed.
As neither party has been substantially successful, name suppression is not granted to either party and the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5000052 — net $517.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$517.50	Repairs
Net award	$517.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$517.50

Order

Karen Nelson to pay Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Ling Gao $517.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $517.50 (6446186-012) to Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited Ling Gao immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of 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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the walls and carpet stains.
The Landlord claimed damage to the walls throughout the house which included black marks, holes from an entertainment unit, holes from a vacuum cleaner, damage to the inside of the hot cupboard and bedroom cupboard wall. The Landlord provided an invoice which noted these damages and some photographs of the walls at the end of the tenancy. There was no ingoing inspection report as the Landlord started managing the property after the tenancy started.
The Tenant claimed responsibility for damage to wall where she hung her vacuum cleaner, on the wall at the top of the stairs when the removalists moved furniture out and to the wall where she attached her entertainment unit. The Tenant did not agree to the damage in the inside cupboard and claimed the other parts of the wall damage were wear and tear.
The Landlord was given an opportunity after the hearing to provide evidence from the previous tenancy of the state of the property because there was no ingoing inspection report. Photographs were sent after the hearing of damage to walls however these did not indicated the location in the house or the date these photographs were taken. The landlord submitted the property was brand new before the Tenant moved in however did not provide evidence to substantiate the year the property was built or the renovations undertaken.
The Tenant produced email correspondence between the parties at the start of the tenancy where she noted the marks already in the bedroom cupboard on the walls. She also had email evidence that she took responsibility for the damage to the walls she had caused.
The Tenant claimed she was unable to enter the property to obtain a quote for the wall repairs after the tenancy ended as she felt the amount claimed by the Landlord was excessive.
The tenancy ended on or about 25 July 2024 and the Landlord had undertaken the repairs by 31 July 2024. The Landlord was not required to give the Tenant that opportunity to enter the property to obtain quotes for the repairs.
The Landlord also claimed for cleaning carpet stains and provided photographs of some stains however no evidence was provided of the initial inspection. An invoice was provided to substantiate the amount claimed.
The Tenant referred to her emails she had sent to the Landlord at the start of the tenancy which showed the stains already present.
In considering the evidence, the Landlord did not produce sufficient evidence to show the damage to the walls was caused during the tenancy because they did not present an ingoing inspection report or photographs at the start of the tenancy. The Tenant took responsibility for the damage to the wall for the vacuum cleaner which cost $345.00. The Tenant also took responsibility for the damage to the stair wall and entertainment unit wall.
The Landlord also claimed some black wall marks required removal and this had been discussed in the parties email correspondence where the Tenant claimed this was wear and tear. I do not find these black marks constitute wear and tear and therefore the Tenant is liable. The invoice does not itemise the costs for each wall damage so I find the appropriate amount the Tenant should pay for the remaining wall damage is $172.50.
In terms of the carpet, the Landlord did not provide an ingoing inspection report to indicate the carpet was without stains or brand new at the start of the tenancy. The Tenant had email evidence to show that there were carpet stains at the start of the tenancy.
Because the Landlord had insufficient evidence to prove the stains were caused during the tenancy, the claim for carpet stains is dismissed.
As neither party has been substantially successful, name suppression is not granted to either party and the Landlord shall pay their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5000052 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 14, 78 Orakei Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5000052 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Unit 14, 78 Orakei Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

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