Are tenants liable for reckless or negligent actions causing damage.

Are tenants liable for reckless or negligent actions causing damage.

In the Osaki case a fire resulting from a tenant cooking was held to be accidental, and hence because the Landlord was insured the tenant had the benefit of that insurance cover and was not liable for the damage. The Tribunal held it was accidental damage ie the tenant did not intend the damage , nor was she negligent or unduly reckless in her actions that resulted in the fire.

In a similar case, David Russ of Tekoa Trust appealed a decision of the Tenancy Tribunal when it ruled last year that his tenant, Amanda Stewart, was not liable for damage caused by her dogs urinating throughout the Foxton house she rented. David Russ appealed this decision in the Palmerston North District Court.

“Conduct will be intentional when it is deliberate, and not accidental, and [resulting damage] will be intentional if the defendant meant to cause it or (probably) knew it was going to result,” the (District Court order) said regarding the reference.

The Tenancy Tribunal based its decision on the landmark “Osaki” court case, in which tenants who accidentally set fire to their rental house did not have to pay for the damage.

Landlords around the country became concerned that if they had insurance, the tenant would not have to pay even in cases of carelessness.

However, the Palmerston North District Court has overturned the tribunal’s decision and ordered Stewart to pay about $3790 in carpet replacement costs, court costs and lost rent.

Judge David Smith said he was “of the view” that the tribunal adjudicator was wrong for concluding the damage was unintentional.

Stewart the tenant, Not only breached a no-dog clause in her tenancy agreement, but she had continued to let the dogs in after perhaps a couple of urinating events.

District Court used a passage from the Brookers Summary Offence, a legal text book, to support its decision.

Tenancy expert Scotney Williams of tenancy.co.nz said the appeal case would help both landlords and tenants by clarifying the meaning of unintentional damage.

“The decision being a district court decision creates binding precedent at the Tenancy Tribunal for similar cases”, he said.

STUFF

In summary:

Tenants again liable for careless damage up to the value of your excess or 4 weeks rent (whichever amount is lower).

It is on a per-event basis.

Accepting more is an unlawful act and you can expect to have significant damages awarded against you.