What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5027485?

The tribunal order states: Jayde Martel must pay Lindsey Harris $1,960.75 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5027485?

Property Damage: $1,960.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5027485?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5027485?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11397314-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5027485?

The tribunal order states: Jayde Martel must pay Lindsey Harris $1,960.75 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 5027485?

Property Damage: $1,960.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5027485?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5027485?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11397314-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

24 Waverley Street, Waipawa, Waipawa 4210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5027485 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5027485 — net $1,960.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$1,960.75	Repairs
Net award	$1,960.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,960.75

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 30 January 2025.

The landlord has applied for compensation 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. The landlord is insured. The policy of insurance has an excess of $350.00 on each and every claim. The insurer considers each item of damage to be a separate event to which the excess is to apply.

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: A door was damaged. The tenant said that this occurred as a result of an attempted break in. The landlord withdrew the claim. There were numerous holes in the walls in the front bedroom, lounge, rear bedroom and kitchen. The landlord provided photos of the damage and an invoice for the repair. The invoice for the holes included work on the door. I have deducted $100.00 plus GST from the invoice for the holes. The floors in both the bedroom and lounge are stained. Photos and an invoice were provided. 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 tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the tenant’s application is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5027485 — net $1,960.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$1,960.75	Repairs
Net award	$1,960.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,960.75

Order

Jayde Martel must pay Lindsey Harris $1,960.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 30 January 2025.
The landlord has applied for compensation 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. The landlord is insured. The policy of insurance has an excess of $350.00 on each and every claim. The insurer considers each item of damage to be a separate event to which the excess is to apply.
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: A door was damaged. The tenant said that this occurred as a result of an attempted break in. The landlord withdrew the claim. There were numerous holes in the walls in the front bedroom, lounge, rear bedroom and kitchen. The landlord provided photos of the damage and an invoice for the repair. The invoice for the holes included work on the door. I have deducted $100.00 plus GST from the invoice for the holes. The floors in both the bedroom and lounge are stained. Photos and an invoice were provided. 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 tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the tenant’s application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5027485 — Property damage at 24 Waverley Street, Waipawa, Waipawa 4210

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5027485 — Property damage at 24 Waverley Street, Waipawa, Waipawa 4210

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

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

Frequently asked questions