Rental property damage: Landlords liable - court rules

[cube]

Careless damage to rentals: Law change may see tenants liable for a landlord's insurance excess

Tenants will soon have to pay out of their own pockets to cover their landlord's insurance excess if damage to their rental properties was the result of their own carelessness.

The measure is included in a bill introduced by Building Minister Nick Smith as the Government's promised response to a Court of Appeal decision last year which ruled a tenant did not have to pay damage after leaving a pot of oil on the stove and causing a fire.

[flyernzl]

Tenants’ liability for damage
“The NZ Property Investors' Federation is pleased that Government is taking action to remedy the situation of tenants not being responsible for damage they accidently cause in rental properties,” says Andrew King, Executive Officer of the NZPIF

However the general principle of the bill is that tenants are still not liable for accidental damage they cause and this is very disappointing.

Under the Bill, if tenants cause any damage to their rental property, they will only be liable for the cost of their landlord’s insurance excess up to a maximum of four weeks’ rent for each incident of damage.

While the intention of the Bill is good, it doesn't really safeguard the interests of the three main parties involved, being tenants, rental property owners and insurance companies.
Insurance companies can no longer hold accountable the person responsible for the damage and this, they say, increases their risk.

As tenants are responsible for the insurance excess for each incident of damage they cause, they could be liable for many thousands of dollars of repair costs. Consequently they will still need to insure themselves.

If a rental property owner’s insurance company and the Tenancy Tribunal cannot agree on how many incidents of damage are involved, an owner may still be liable for a majority of the cost for their tenant’s damage.

The Bill also talks about careless damage. The NZPIF is concerned that tenants may not be accountable for any accidental damage they cause. Deciding what is accidental and what is careless damage could be very problematic.

The NZPIF believes that the simplest solution would be to return the whole issue of tenants’ liability for damage back to how it was before the court ruling. In addition, landlords would need to inform their tenants of their potential liability for damage and emphasise that there is insurance to protect them.
ENDS

For further information please contact:
Andrew King
Executive Officer, NZ Property Investors’ Federation
Email: [email protected]
Ph: (09) 815 8645, Mobile: 021 216 1299

[nano]

Tenancy law amendment passed

Regarding 'careless' damage, but it won't be enough to protect landlords.

I wanted to remove the thread, but it seems that can not be done.
Could you please remove my thread?
Thanks.

[QRM]

I agree the implication of the Osaki court hearing has been problematic. Photos of damage can paint a picture and help to show the damage, we have been relatively successful in having damage awarded. The other option is to see if you can mediate this via tenancy services, we have had quite good success with this, clearly this needs the co-operation of the tenant (which you may not have). Happy to discuss your particular situation with you to see if we can help.

Cheers
Robyn Marsters
Quality Rental Management Ltd

https://www.QRM.co.nz

[Perry]

It is all a bit moot, really. Getting a TT award and getting the money are chalk and cheese, at best.

As another forumite posted here: "we have no interest to waste time in tenancy tribunal"

Most of us know that feeling, only too well.

[nano]

It seems the thread that I started is going to stay.
The amendment for the current law has just passed so the landlord will be more protected to a certain degree. The effective date is not known and the currently lodged claims will not have the benefit of the new amendment.

[Perry]

Is this (Practice Note) already floating about the Forums, somewhere?

---

---

---

[Learning]

I was just swinging my hammer around carelessly, tripped on the new carpet and accidentally put 17 holes in the wall. I didn't intend for the damage to occur. After the first 8 times I was curious as to why the holes were appearing and I was concerned that the property might be unsafe due to the unexplained spontaneous openings. I continued investigations with my hammer until I realised it must of been what my Landlord had meant when he told me to ventilate the property. On the balance of probilities the damage would of occurred regardless of what heavy blunt object I was swinging because I tripped. I'm glad he's got insurance for such events so I can be released of any blame.

[newbie investor]

To fight the Tenancy Tribunal effectively, what it requires is for landlords to appeal aggressively, especially when there is a good case. If there are enough appeals (at least enough to the Tenancy Tribunal), then they may actually read the legislation and write their judgments more carefully given that it is subject to scrutiny.

[Perry]

If there are enough appeals (at least enough to the Tenancy Tribunal) . . .

When theorising about options, you should probably read the relevant RTA sections carefully. Regarding both Appeals (which are to the District Court) and applications for a re-Hearing (which remain at the Tenancy Tribunal level).

[paul18]

Hi!
I had a bond with my tenant and now I want them to leave my home. What documents would I require and what will be courts laws? Can someone tell
me.
Thanks in advance.

[Nice]

Hi!
I had a bond with my tenant and now I want them to leave my home. What documents would I require and what will be courts laws? Can someone tell
me.
Thanks in advance.

Tenant or Flatmate ? What paperwork do you have justifying your current position ?

[sidinz]

Hi!
I had a bond with my tenant and now I want them to leave my home. What documents would I require and what will be courts laws? Can someone tell
me.
Thanks in advance.

Yeah, really hard to understand the question and the situation. More info needed.

[FJW]

Intentional damage

Hi All,

Has anyone been to the TT and won a damage case by proving that the damage was intentional and not carelessness? I've got a few ideas on how you could possible prove that it was intentional but interested in what other people have done to get the ball over the net.

Look forward to your answers!

[Viking]

More Judicial opinion on Osaki.

Reckless damage by tenants not intentional

Tuesday 16 January 2018

Extensive cigarette damage to the carpets of a rental property, which had a ban on smoking in the tenancy agreement, qualifies as accidental damage by the tenants, the High Court has ruled. The Tenancy Tribunal awarded the LL some costs for damages. Later, the LL appealed to the District Court as she felt the tenants should also pay her the insurance excess she had paid and to replace two carpets which were insured, but where the excess meant it was not economic to claim on insurance.

The District Court dismissed her appeal so the LL went to the High Court where she argued the District Court was wrong to apply the Holler v Osaki decision to the case. But, in a recent decision, Justice Gerald Nation dismissed the LL's appeal in favour of the tenants, saying the District Court had not erred in its interpretation.

https://www.landlords.co.nz/article/6365/reckless-damage-by-tenants-not-intentional