What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048208?

The tribunal order states: Rhiannon Gerrard must pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5048208?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048208?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11480121-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5048208?

The tribunal order states: Rhiannon Gerrard must pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5048208?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5048208?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5048208?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11480121-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Ara Reti, Mangere, Auckland 2022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5048208 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5048208 — net $627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Floor repair insurance excess	$600.00	Replace furnishings: Floor repair insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$627.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$627.00

Both parties attended the hearing by video.

The landlord has applied compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The Tenant applied for a refund of the bond and compensation. The Tenant withdrew their claim at the hearing for the bond.

The property was a new build and the tenant was the first occupier. The parties agreed that the Tenant had caused damages to the laminate floor and the Tenant agreed to pay the insurance excess. The Landlord sought a repair quote, which came to $1237.10, and submitted an insurance claim with an excess of $400. The Tenant agreed to this amount however, the insurance company increased the excess to $1000, effective just three days before the Tenant moved out.

The Landlord submitted they sought legal advice which confirmed that the new excess was applicable, and they could claim an additional $600.00 as the tenant had not been properly notified of the change.

The Tenant refused to pay the new excess of $600.00. The Tenant then explained that she had previously overpaid $2000.00 into the Landlords bank account and the Landlord had directed some of this to cover the excess. The Tenant did not agree with the way the Landlord allocated the overpayment towards alternate avenues without the Tenant’s consent. The Tenant submitted the Landlord owed her $1000.00 in compensation.

The Landlord clarified this overpayment payment was allocated by reimbursing $1000.00 to the Tenant and the balance was allocated towards overdue rent and other outstanding payments. They provided a rent ledger to substantiate this and confirmation of the excess from the insurance company. Is the tenant liable to pay the $600.00 for the outstanding insurance excess?

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.

In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord’s claim for compensation is proved on the balance of probabilities. There was agreement by the Tenant that she caused the damage to the floor. The way the overpayment of $1000.00 was allocated is not relevant in determining the Landlord’s claim for insurance excess. It is not a consideration under the Act. The Tenant caused the damage and therefore the Tenant owes the Landlord for the repair.

The Tenant’s claim for $1000.00 was not clear in terms of how the Landlord came to owe this amount. The Landlord provided a rent ledger to show where the overpayment was allocated however there was no specific evidence from the Tenant to support her claim.

The amount ordered is proved for the Landlords claim.

The Tenant’s claim is dismissed.

As the landlord has wholly succeeded in their claim, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5048208 — net $627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: Floor repair insurance excess	$600.00	Replace furnishings: Floor repair insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$627.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$627.00

Order

Rhiannon Gerrard must pay Iron Bridge Property Management (Auck) Limited As Agent For G Shah $627.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by video.
The landlord has applied compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant applied for a refund of the bond and compensation. The Tenant withdrew their claim at the hearing for the bond.
The property was a new build and the tenant was the first occupier. The parties agreed that the Tenant had caused damages to the laminate floor and the Tenant agreed to pay the insurance excess. The Landlord sought a repair quote, which came to $1237.10, and submitted an insurance claim with an excess of $400. The Tenant agreed to this amount however, the insurance company increased the excess to $1000, effective just three days before the Tenant moved out.
The Landlord submitted they sought legal advice which confirmed that the new excess was applicable, and they could claim an additional $600.00 as the tenant had not been properly notified of the change.
The Tenant refused to pay the new excess of $600.00. The Tenant then explained that she had previously overpaid $2000.00 into the Landlords bank account and the Landlord had directed some of this to cover the excess. The Tenant did not agree with the way the Landlord allocated the overpayment towards alternate avenues without the Tenant’s consent. The Tenant submitted the Landlord owed her $1000.00 in compensation.
The Landlord clarified this overpayment payment was allocated by reimbursing $1000.00 to the Tenant and the balance was allocated towards overdue rent and other outstanding payments. They provided a rent ledger to substantiate this and confirmation of the excess from the insurance company. Is the tenant liable to pay the $600.00 for the outstanding insurance excess?
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.
In considering the evidence, I find the Landlord’s claim for compensation is proved on the balance of probabilities. There was agreement by the Tenant that she caused the damage to the floor. The way the overpayment of $1000.00 was allocated is not relevant in determining the Landlord’s claim for insurance excess. It is not a consideration under the Act. The Tenant caused the damage and therefore the Tenant owes the Landlord for the repair.
The Tenant’s claim for $1000.00 was not clear in terms of how the Landlord came to owe this amount. The Landlord provided a rent ledger to show where the overpayment was allocated however there was no specific evidence from the Tenant to support her claim.
The amount ordered is proved for the Landlords claim.
The Tenant’s claim is dismissed.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded in their claim, the Tenant shall reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048208 — Property damage at 8 Ara Reti, Mangere, Auckland 2022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5048208 — Property damage at 8 Ara Reti, Mangere, Auckland 2022

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