What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5420293?

The tribunal order states: Christopher Troy Duff is to pay Auckland Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5420293?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $7.20 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420293?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13448784-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5420293?

The tribunal order states: Christopher Troy Duff is to pay Auckland Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5420293?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $7.20 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: $200.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5420293?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5420293?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13448784-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

40A Moorfield Road, Te Kauwhata, RD 2, Te Kauwhata Tenancy Tribunal Case 5420293 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5420293 — net $235.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$7.20	Lock/key replacement
Replace furnishings	$200.00	Replace furnishings
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$235.20
Bond	$1,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$235.20

Order

Christopher Troy Duff is to pay Auckland Property Management Limited $235.20 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 (6191592-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Auckland Property Management Limited: $235.20 Christopher Troy Duff: $1,664.80

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenant noted that the postal address for the premises is 40B Moorfield Road. However, the tenancy agreement records the address as 40A Moorfield Road. There is no dispute that the tenant occupied the premises. It is appropriate that the Tribunal’s order refers to the description of the premises in the tenancy agreement signed by both parties.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(iv) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence confirms that the tenant did not return a key. The landlord is entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of having another key cut.
The landlord’s claim for the replacement key is proved.

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 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 landlord provided photographic evidence of the state of the vinyl floor covering in the dining area at the start of the tenancy which did not show any damage. The landlord’s photographic evidence of the state of the vinyl at the end of the tenancy showed that there were three areas of damage to the vinyl. The landlord claimed that the damage was caused by the tenant parking his motorcycle on the vinyl during the tenancy. The landlord was claiming the insurance excess for the replacement of the vinyl on the basis that the damage was careless. The landlord provided no evidence of the age of the vinyl.
The tenant explained that he parked his motorcycle in the dining area on one occasion only. He accepted that the bike’s tyres caused the small amount of damage. He gave evidence that he placed a protective shield under the stand because he knew that the stand’s surface was rough and would otherwise cause damage.
Parking a motorcycle in a dining area is not a usual use of a dining area. The damage cannot be considered fair wear and tear.
There is no evidence that the tenant regularly parked his motorcycle in the premises and the tenant denies doing so. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has not persuaded it that the tenant parked his motorcycle inside the premises on more than the one occasion accepted by the tenant.
The Tribunal concludes that the damage was caused by a single event and was careless damage. This means that the tenant’s liability is limited to the landlord’s insurance excess of $750.00.
Having determined that the damage was caused by the tenant’s carelessness, the Tribunal’s enquiry does not end. The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not damaged the vinyl. The landlord should not be better or worse off.
It is necessary to consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The Inland Revenue Department’s depreciation rate for carpets is 8 years and for vinyl floorings in commercial premises 5 years. The Tribunal accepts an 8-year lifespan for vinyl in a residential rental property.
While the photographic evidence suggests that the vinyl is more than 8 years old, it remained serviceable and would not have required replacement but for the actions of the tenant. However, the landlord has acquired new vinyl and is clearly in a much better position than if the old, undamaged vinyl remained. Having considered these factors, it is just that the tenant makes a modest contribution towards the landlord’s cost and a sum of $200.00 is awarded to the landlord in compensation for the damaged caused by the tenant to the vinyl.
Because Auckland Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5420293 — net $235.20 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lock/key replacement	$7.20	Lock/key replacement
Replace furnishings	$200.00	Replace furnishings
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$235.20
Bond	$1,900.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$235.20

Order

Christopher Troy Duff is to pay Auckland Property Management Limited $235.20 from the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,900.00 (6191592-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Auckland Property Management Limited: $235.20 Christopher Troy Duff: $1,664.80

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenant noted that the postal address for the premises is 40B Moorfield Road. However, the tenancy agreement records the address as 40A Moorfield Road. There is no dispute that the tenant occupied the premises. It is appropriate that the Tribunal’s order refers to the description of the premises in the tenancy agreement signed by both parties.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must return all keys. See section 40(1)(e)(iv) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence confirms that the tenant did not return a key. The landlord is entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of having another key cut.
The landlord’s claim for the replacement key is proved.

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 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 landlord provided photographic evidence of the state of the vinyl floor covering in the dining area at the start of the tenancy which did not show any damage. The landlord’s photographic evidence of the state of the vinyl at the end of the tenancy showed that there were three areas of damage to the vinyl. The landlord claimed that the damage was caused by the tenant parking his motorcycle on the vinyl during the tenancy. The landlord was claiming the insurance excess for the replacement of the vinyl on the basis that the damage was careless. The landlord provided no evidence of the age of the vinyl.
The tenant explained that he parked his motorcycle in the dining area on one occasion only. He accepted that the bike’s tyres caused the small amount of damage. He gave evidence that he placed a protective shield under the stand because he knew that the stand’s surface was rough and would otherwise cause damage.
Parking a motorcycle in a dining area is not a usual use of a dining area. The damage cannot be considered fair wear and tear.
There is no evidence that the tenant regularly parked his motorcycle in the premises and the tenant denies doing so. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has not persuaded it that the tenant parked his motorcycle inside the premises on more than the one occasion accepted by the tenant.
The Tribunal concludes that the damage was caused by a single event and was careless damage. This means that the tenant’s liability is limited to the landlord’s insurance excess of $750.00.
Having determined that the damage was caused by the tenant’s carelessness, the Tribunal’s enquiry does not end. The Tribunal must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not damaged the vinyl. The landlord should not be better or worse off.
It is necessary to consider the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. The Inland Revenue Department’s depreciation rate for carpets is 8 years and for vinyl floorings in commercial premises 5 years. The Tribunal accepts an 8-year lifespan for vinyl in a residential rental property.
While the photographic evidence suggests that the vinyl is more than 8 years old, it remained serviceable and would not have required replacement but for the actions of the tenant. However, the landlord has acquired new vinyl and is clearly in a much better position than if the old, undamaged vinyl remained. Having considered these factors, it is just that the tenant makes a modest contribution towards the landlord’s cost and a sum of $200.00 is awarded to the landlord in compensation for the damaged caused by the tenant to the vinyl.
Because Auckland Property Management Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5420293 — Property damage at 40A Moorfield Road, Te Kauwhata, RD 2, Te Kauwhata

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5420293 — Property damage at 40A Moorfield Road, Te Kauwhata, RD 2, Te Kauwhata

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions