What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4427941 about?

The tribunal order states: the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 4427941?

Cleaning: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Exceeding Maximum Occupants: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $589.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $185.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,817.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4427941?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4427941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8571625-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4427941 about?

The tribunal order states: the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 4427941?

Cleaning: $210.00 awarded to landlord; Exceeding Maximum Occupants: $150.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $589.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $185.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,817.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4427941?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4427941?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/8571625-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4427941 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4427941 — net $1,811.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,817.28	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$210.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$589.00	Repairs
Lock/key replacement	$185.00	Lock/key replacement
exceeding maximum occupants	$150.00	exceeding maximum occupants
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,811.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,811.72

Order

the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 [(bond number suppressed)] to [the landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,811.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

[The landlord/s] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). How much is owed for rent.
The tenancy commenced on 14 June 2022 and was for a fixed term to expire on 16 April 2023. On 09 September 2022, the parties agreed to bring the fixed term to an end. A condition of the agreement was that the tenant would remain liable for the rent until the commencement of a new tenancy. The landlord entered a new agreement commencing 22 October 2022. The new tenancy agreement has been produced. The landlord is claiming rent to 21 October 2022. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to that date.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and to return the keys. The landlord is claiming cleaning costs of $210.00, and $185.00 to replace the locks.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The property has three bedrooms, bathroom, two toilets, kitchen, open plan dining / living area, and laundry. The landlord has produced a pre tenancy checklist, and photographs taken of the inside of the property at the end of the tenancy. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The amount claimed for cleaning is reasonable and awarded in full.
At the commencement of the tenancy the tenant was provided with keys to the front door, which is a ranch slider, and the back door. These were not returned at the end of the tenancy. The locks were unable to be rekeyed and needed to be replaced. The amount claimed to replace the locks is reasonable and awarded in full.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the ceramic cooktop and two walls in the lounge. The landlord claims that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord is claiming $449.00 to replace the cooktop, and $140.00 to repair the damaged walls.
To succeed with a claim for damage the 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 of the Act.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act. The landlord has insurance for damage to the property with an excess of $550.00 per claim.
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) of the Act.
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 has produced photographs of the damaged cooktop and walls. The cooktop and walls were undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. Having viewed the photographs and heard from [the landlord/s] I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts claimed are reasonable and awarded in full.
[The landlord/s] claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Despite the property having three bedrooms, the tenancy agreement specifies that a maximum number of two people may reside at the property. I note the new tenancy agreement allows for three occupants.
The landlord states that a male (“R”), also resided at the property with the occupants and without their consent.
The landlord states that while the tenant was moving in, they saw a white van parked in the driveway. The landlord states that the white van was not the tenant’s vehicle and assumed that it belonged to someone helping the tenant. The landlord states that they also own another rental property nearby. When they visited that property, they often witnessed the same white van parked in the driveway of the tenant’s property.
The landlord states that in August 2022, they went to the property to discuss missing rent payments. The landlord states that the white van was parked in the driveway. The landlord states that a male answered the door, identified himself as R, and advised that the tenant was out. A short time later the landlord reviewed their bank statements and discovered that six of the 13 rent payments between June 2022 and September 2022 had been made by R.
Shortly after the visit the landlord states the tenant asked whether the tenancy could be transferred to R, or to both the tenant and R. The landlord states that in early September 2022 they received a call from R advising that the tenant had left and taken his white van. The landlord states that R has told them that they were residing at the address with the tenant and another occupant.
R is not at Court to give evidence. The landlord has produced an unsigned statement from R. In the statement R invites the Tribunal to call and confirm the contents of the statement. In the circumstances I do not consider that appropriate. I have put the unsigned statement to one side. I do however take into account the landlord’s oral evidence of what R said.
The onus is on the landlord to satisfy the Tribunal that more likely than not R ordinarily resided at the property with the tenant, in breach of the clause. Breaching the clause, without a reasonable excuse, is an unlawful act. Where the tenant provides an evidential basis for there being a reasonable excuse, it is for the landlord to satisfy the Tribunal, on balance, that the tenant did not have an excuse.
I have considered the presence of the white van at the property, the number of times the landlord witnessed the van parked at the property, that R is the owner of the van, the tenant’s approach to the landlord seeking transfer of the tenancy to R , that R made regular rent payments, R’s meeting the landlord at the property, and the landlord’s oral evidence that R told them they were residing at the property with the tenant. Having considered the evidence I am satisfied, more likely than not, that R was ordinarily resident at the property, in breach of the occupancy clause.
The tenant has not appeared, and there is no evidence of their being a reasonable excuse. I find that the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) of the Act.
The tenant contacted the landlord soon after the landlord’s visit to the property and meeting with R. The timing suggests that the tenant knew that they were in breach of the occupancy clause. The landlord has not raised the issue during the tenancy and no 14-day breach notices were issued. The property has three bedrooms, and as stated the new tenancy allows for three occupants. There is no evidence that exceeding the occupancy clause has resulted in any additional fair wear and tear over and above that which may have been expected had the clause not been breached. I am not satisfied that exceeding the occupancy clause was necessarily a contributing factor in the damage. There is no evidence of any significant or lasting impact on the landlord. I put the breach at the lower end of the scale. I award exemplary damages of $150.00. Costs
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been wholly successful seeks and is granted name suppression, which includes the address of the property.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The material produced by the landlord suggests that the tenant may have unresolved personal issues. While the facts and reasoning of this case may be of the public interest, I am not satisfied, in the circumstances, that this interest necessarily extends to the tenant’s name. I therefore exercise the discretion in section 95A (4) and order suppression of the tenant’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4427941 — net $1,811.72 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,817.28	Rent arrears
Cleaning	$210.00	Cleaning
Repairs	$589.00	Repairs
Lock/key replacement	$185.00	Lock/key replacement
exceeding maximum occupants	$150.00	exceeding maximum occupants
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,811.72
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,811.72

Order

the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,160.00 [(bond number suppressed)] to [the landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,811.72 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

[The landlord/s] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The onus of proving these claims rests with the landlord. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The landlord must establish more likely than not that the tenant has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). How much is owed for rent.
The tenancy commenced on 14 June 2022 and was for a fixed term to expire on 16 April 2023. On 09 September 2022, the parties agreed to bring the fixed term to an end. A condition of the agreement was that the tenant would remain liable for the rent until the commencement of a new tenancy. The landlord entered a new agreement commencing 22 October 2022. The new tenancy agreement has been produced. The landlord is claiming rent to 21 October 2022. The landlord has provided rent records which prove the amount owing to that date.

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

The landlord claims that the tenant failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition, and to return the keys. The landlord is claiming cleaning costs of $210.00, and $185.00 to replace the locks.
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Act.
The property has three bedrooms, bathroom, two toilets, kitchen, open plan dining / living area, and laundry. The landlord has produced a pre tenancy checklist, and photographs taken of the inside of the property at the end of the tenancy. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to leave the property in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The amount claimed for cleaning is reasonable and awarded in full.
At the commencement of the tenancy the tenant was provided with keys to the front door, which is a ranch slider, and the back door. These were not returned at the end of the tenancy. The locks were unable to be rekeyed and needed to be replaced. The amount claimed to replace the locks is reasonable and awarded in full.

Is the tenant responsible for damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to the ceramic cooktop and two walls in the lounge. The landlord claims that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord is claiming $449.00 to replace the cooktop, and $140.00 to repair the damaged walls.
To succeed with a claim for damage the 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 of the Act.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the Act 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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. 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) of the Act. The landlord has insurance for damage to the property with an excess of $550.00 per claim.
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) of the Act.
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 has produced photographs of the damaged cooktop and walls. The cooktop and walls were undamaged at the commencement of the tenancy. Having viewed the photographs and heard from [the landlord/s] I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and that it was more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts claimed are reasonable and awarded in full.
[The landlord/s] claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) of the Act.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
Despite the property having three bedrooms, the tenancy agreement specifies that a maximum number of two people may reside at the property. I note the new tenancy agreement allows for three occupants.
The landlord states that a male (“R”), also resided at the property with the occupants and without their consent.
The landlord states that while the tenant was moving in, they saw a white van parked in the driveway. The landlord states that the white van was not the tenant’s vehicle and assumed that it belonged to someone helping the tenant. The landlord states that they also own another rental property nearby. When they visited that property, they often witnessed the same white van parked in the driveway of the tenant’s property.
The landlord states that in August 2022, they went to the property to discuss missing rent payments. The landlord states that the white van was parked in the driveway. The landlord states that a male answered the door, identified himself as R, and advised that the tenant was out. A short time later the landlord reviewed their bank statements and discovered that six of the 13 rent payments between June 2022 and September 2022 had been made by R.
Shortly after the visit the landlord states the tenant asked whether the tenancy could be transferred to R, or to both the tenant and R. The landlord states that in early September 2022 they received a call from R advising that the tenant had left and taken his white van. The landlord states that R has told them that they were residing at the address with the tenant and another occupant.
R is not at Court to give evidence. The landlord has produced an unsigned statement from R. In the statement R invites the Tribunal to call and confirm the contents of the statement. In the circumstances I do not consider that appropriate. I have put the unsigned statement to one side. I do however take into account the landlord’s oral evidence of what R said.
The onus is on the landlord to satisfy the Tribunal that more likely than not R ordinarily resided at the property with the tenant, in breach of the clause. Breaching the clause, without a reasonable excuse, is an unlawful act. Where the tenant provides an evidential basis for there being a reasonable excuse, it is for the landlord to satisfy the Tribunal, on balance, that the tenant did not have an excuse.
I have considered the presence of the white van at the property, the number of times the landlord witnessed the van parked at the property, that R is the owner of the van, the tenant’s approach to the landlord seeking transfer of the tenancy to R , that R made regular rent payments, R’s meeting the landlord at the property, and the landlord’s oral evidence that R told them they were residing at the property with the tenant. Having considered the evidence I am satisfied, more likely than not, that R was ordinarily resident at the property, in breach of the occupancy clause.
The tenant has not appeared, and there is no evidence of their being a reasonable excuse. I find that the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) of the Act.
The tenant contacted the landlord soon after the landlord’s visit to the property and meeting with R. The timing suggests that the tenant knew that they were in breach of the occupancy clause. The landlord has not raised the issue during the tenancy and no 14-day breach notices were issued. The property has three bedrooms, and as stated the new tenancy allows for three occupants. There is no evidence that exceeding the occupancy clause has resulted in any additional fair wear and tear over and above that which may have been expected had the clause not been breached. I am not satisfied that exceeding the occupancy clause was necessarily a contributing factor in the damage. There is no evidence of any significant or lasting impact on the landlord. I put the breach at the lower end of the scale. I award exemplary damages of $150.00. Costs
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has been wholly successful seeks and is granted name suppression, which includes the address of the property.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The material produced by the landlord suggests that the tenant may have unresolved personal issues. While the facts and reasoning of this case may be of the public interest, I am not satisfied, in the circumstances, that this interest necessarily extends to the tenant’s name. I therefore exercise the discretion in section 95A (4) and order suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4427941 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4427941 — Rent arrears

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 damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

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 damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions