What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5402708?

The tribunal order states: Ranjiv Sahni to pay Asset Property Care Limited As Agent For Mark & Martine

How much money was awarded in case 5402708?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5402708?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5402708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13093835-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5402708?

The tribunal order states: Ranjiv Sahni to pay Asset Property Care Limited As Agent For Mark & Martine

How much money was awarded in case 5402708?

Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5402708?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5402708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13093835-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

A33 Wernham Place, Birkenhead, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5402708 — Property damage

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5402708 — net $400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Gate repairs	$400.00	Repairs: Gate repairs
Net award	$400.00
Bond	$3,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$400.00

Ranjiv Sahni to pay Asset Property Care Limited As Agent For Mark & Martine Goodacre $400.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,720.00 (6352847-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Asset Property Care Limited As Agent For Mark & Martine Goodacre: $400.00 Ranjiv Sahni: $3,320.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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: wall damage.

There was damage to the walls by the stair well where the Tenants had placed two screw holes to insert a security gate. There were also other wall areas of the property which had scratches and chipped paint. The Landlord claimed $620.00 for the damage however this was not itemised in terms of costs to repair each damage. The Landlord provided photographs of the damage and a quote to repair. There was no ingoing inspection report provided.

The Tenant submitted the costs claimed were disproportionate to the damage and equated it to the cost of painting a whole wall. While he did not have builder or painter expertise, he submitted all that was required was paint patch work and the filling of two holes. He submitted $200.00 was more appropriate.

In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant did intentionally damage the walls because they would have known, when they inserted the gate that the screw holes damaged the wall. It is more than fair wear and tear. I find a reasonable amount to award for the screw holes based on the evidence from the Landlords independent builder and photographs is $400.00. In terms of the other wall damage, there was no entry property inspection report filed to show the damage was caused during the tenancy and no clear breakdown of how much they would cost to repair. The Tenant also did not have any building expertise to estimate the costs to repair and they did not have independent quotes from a builder or painter.

For these reasons, the claim is proved for the screw holes only.

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.

As both parties have been substantially successful with their claims, they shall pay their own filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5402708 — net $400.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Gate repairs	$400.00	Repairs: Gate repairs
Net award	$400.00
Bond	$3,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$400.00

Order

Ranjiv Sahni to pay Asset Property Care Limited As Agent For Mark & Martine Goodacre $400.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,720.00 (6352847-009) immediately apportioned as follows: Asset Property Care Limited As Agent For Mark & Martine Goodacre: $400.00 Ranjiv Sahni: $3,320.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Tenant has applied for refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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: wall damage.
There was damage to the walls by the stair well where the Tenants had placed two screw holes to insert a security gate. There were also other wall areas of the property which had scratches and chipped paint. The Landlord claimed $620.00 for the damage however this was not itemised in terms of costs to repair each damage. The Landlord provided photographs of the damage and a quote to repair. There was no ingoing inspection report provided.
The Tenant submitted the costs claimed were disproportionate to the damage and equated it to the cost of painting a whole wall. While he did not have builder or painter expertise, he submitted all that was required was paint patch work and the filling of two holes. He submitted $200.00 was more appropriate.
In considering the evidence, I find the Tenant did intentionally damage the walls because they would have known, when they inserted the gate that the screw holes damaged the wall. It is more than fair wear and tear. I find a reasonable amount to award for the screw holes based on the evidence from the Landlords independent builder and photographs is $400.00. In terms of the other wall damage, there was no entry property inspection report filed to show the damage was caused during the tenancy and no clear breakdown of how much they would cost to repair. The Tenant also did not have any building expertise to estimate the costs to repair and they did not have independent quotes from a builder or painter.
For these reasons, the claim is proved for the screw holes only.
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.
As both parties have been substantially successful with their claims, they shall pay their own filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5402708 — Property damage at A33 Wernham Place, Birkenhead, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5402708 — Property damage at A33 Wernham Place, Birkenhead, Auckland 0626

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions