What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5034433?

The tribunal order states: Nurrasimah Abdul Rahmat and Muhammad Hafiz Tajuddin to pay Cole

How much money was awarded in case 5034433?

Property Damage: $641.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034433?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034433?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11813847-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5034433?

The tribunal order states: Nurrasimah Abdul Rahmat and Muhammad Hafiz Tajuddin to pay Cole

How much money was awarded in case 5034433?

Property Damage: $641.70 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5034433?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5034433?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11813847-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

126B Taieri Road, Kaikorai, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5034433 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034433 — net $641.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$641.70	Repairs
Net award	$641.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$641.70

Order

Nurrasimah Abdul Rahmat and Muhammad Hafiz Tajuddin to pay Cole Bennetts $641.70 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $641.70 (3050070-023) to Cole Bennetts immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,158.30 (3050070-023) to Nurrasimah Abdul Rahmat and Muhammad Hafiz Tajuddin immediately.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the carpet and the blind is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted by video conference.
This is a cross application. The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has applied for compensation, payment from the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord had also claimed for cleaning costs. However, this claim was withdrawn at the hearing. Relevant legal considerations:
The Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
One of the central expectations relates to onus of proof. With any claim before the Tribunal, it is the applicant who must establish the claim, or to put that another way, the applicant must prove the claim. If the applicant does not provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to establish the claim, then it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal requires the applicant to establish their claim to the balance of probabilities. That means that the applicant must show that what they are claiming is more likely than not. To put that into a mathematical context, the applicant must prove their claim to just over the 50% probability mark. Again, if the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. The landlord’s claims:
Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the paintwork in four areas of the premises; damage to the carpet; and damage to the blind. Damage to the paintwork:
The landlord claims there were four areas of the paintwork that was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant accepts that this damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant says that two of the arears where caused by the removal of fastenings they had applied to the walls. The tenant says the other areas of damage were accidental.
The insurance excess is listed in the tenancy agreement as $400. The landlord says that he has not claimed insurance for this damage because the insurance company has advised him that as there were four separate incidents, the excess would be applied for each instance. I take judicial notice that it is standard for insurance policies to provide for an "excess per claim" meaning that a separate excess is required for each separate incident or event that results in a claim on the policy.
The tenants dispute the amount charged saying that it is excessive.
I find that the damage caused to the paintwork is more than wear and tear and that the tenant is liable for the damage. I find that the sum claimed: $641.70 (including GST) is reasonable.
This claim is proved Damage to the blind and the carpet:
The landlord says that there was a stain on the blind and a sticky substance on the carpet and that both required cleaning. The landlord is seeking $195.50 (including GST) for carpet cleaning and $86.25 for (including GST) to clean the blind.
The landlord says that he had family members conduct the final inspection on his behalf and that the damage to the blind and the carpet was not noticed during that inspection. The landlord says it was only after new tenants had moved in that he became aware of this damage.
The tenant says this damage was not there when they left the premises and that the individuals who conducted the final inspection on behalf of the landlord did a thorough job.
I note that this is the landlord’s claim and he has the burden of proof. The landlord has provided photographs of the damage. However, as this was taken after the new tenants had moved in, I do not find it helpful.
I am not satisfied on the basis of probabilities that the tenant did cause this damage.
This claim is dismissed. The claims for reimbursement of the filing fee:
While each party has had some success with their claims, neither party has been wholly or substantially successful. For this reason, I decline to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5034433 — net $641.70 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs	$641.70	Repairs
Net award	$641.70
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$641.70

Order

Nurrasimah Abdul Rahmat and Muhammad Hafiz Tajuddin to pay Cole Bennetts $641.70 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $641.70 (3050070-023) to Cole Bennetts immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,158.30 (3050070-023) to Nurrasimah Abdul Rahmat and Muhammad Hafiz Tajuddin immediately.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for damage to the carpet and the blind is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted by video conference.
This is a cross application. The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has applied for compensation, payment from the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord had also claimed for cleaning costs. However, this claim was withdrawn at the hearing. Relevant legal considerations:
The Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
One of the central expectations relates to onus of proof. With any claim before the Tribunal, it is the applicant who must establish the claim, or to put that another way, the applicant must prove the claim. If the applicant does not provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to establish the claim, then it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal requires the applicant to establish their claim to the balance of probabilities. That means that the applicant must show that what they are claiming is more likely than not. To put that into a mathematical context, the applicant must prove their claim to just over the 50% probability mark. Again, if the claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. The landlord’s claims:
Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 landlord claims that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the paintwork in four areas of the premises; damage to the carpet; and damage to the blind. Damage to the paintwork:
The landlord claims there were four areas of the paintwork that was damaged during the tenancy. The tenant accepts that this damage was caused during the tenancy. The tenant says that two of the arears where caused by the removal of fastenings they had applied to the walls. The tenant says the other areas of damage were accidental.
The insurance excess is listed in the tenancy agreement as $400. The landlord says that he has not claimed insurance for this damage because the insurance company has advised him that as there were four separate incidents, the excess would be applied for each instance. I take judicial notice that it is standard for insurance policies to provide for an "excess per claim" meaning that a separate excess is required for each separate incident or event that results in a claim on the policy.
The tenants dispute the amount charged saying that it is excessive.
I find that the damage caused to the paintwork is more than wear and tear and that the tenant is liable for the damage. I find that the sum claimed: $641.70 (including GST) is reasonable.
This claim is proved Damage to the blind and the carpet:
The landlord says that there was a stain on the blind and a sticky substance on the carpet and that both required cleaning. The landlord is seeking $195.50 (including GST) for carpet cleaning and $86.25 for (including GST) to clean the blind.
The landlord says that he had family members conduct the final inspection on his behalf and that the damage to the blind and the carpet was not noticed during that inspection. The landlord says it was only after new tenants had moved in that he became aware of this damage.
The tenant says this damage was not there when they left the premises and that the individuals who conducted the final inspection on behalf of the landlord did a thorough job.
I note that this is the landlord’s claim and he has the burden of proof. The landlord has provided photographs of the damage. However, as this was taken after the new tenants had moved in, I do not find it helpful.
I am not satisfied on the basis of probabilities that the tenant did cause this damage.
This claim is dismissed. The claims for reimbursement of the filing fee:
While each party has had some success with their claims, neither party has been wholly or substantially successful. For this reason, I decline to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034433 — Property damage at 126B Taieri Road, Kaikorai, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5034433 — Property damage at 126B Taieri Road, Kaikorai, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions