What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4526193 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4526193?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $228.43 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,378.57 awarded to landlord; Doors, walls, light fitting, toilet…: $1,214.35 awarded to landlord; Towel Rail: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $336.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4526193?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4526193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9095022-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4526193 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4526193?

Cleaning: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $228.43 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,378.57 awarded to landlord; Doors, walls, light fitting, toilet…: $1,214.35 awarded to landlord; Towel Rail: $100.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $336.66 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4526193?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4526193?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9095022-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4526193 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4526193 — net $6,588.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,378.57	Rent arrears
Water rates	$336.66	Water rates
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$228.43	Lock/key replacement
Lawns and Garden work	$460.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Doors, walls, light fitting, toilet seat	$1,214.35	Repairs: Doors, walls, light fitting, toilet seat
Repairs: towel rail	$100.00	Repairs: towel rail
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	32. I find that the toilet roll holder, which looks to have had quite a fragile attachment to the wall, is fair wear and tear.
Net award	$6,588.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,588.45

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Sarah Pepa must return the wardrobe organiser removed from the tenancy address by 5pm on Wednesday 5 July 2023. If the wardrobe organiser is not returned to the landlord by this date and time, Sarah Pepa must pay [The landlord/s] $200.00 immediately.
Sarah Pepa must pay [The landlord/s] $6,588.45 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 June 2023.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The application relates to a residential tenancy for a fixed term from 18 July 2022 to 18 July 2023.

Is the tenant liable for rent arrears and water charges?

The landlord claimed rent of $7,378.57 to 18 January 2023, when the tenant vacated. The landlord said they sent the usual “break lease” form which included a break lease fee.
The tenant said the landlord did not start advertising the property after she let them know she wanted to leave early. She was told she was liable to pay rent to the end of the lease, so she stayed. She did not see the point of signing the break lease form if she was liable for rent to the end of the fixed term in any event, and she was “stuck” on paying a break fee.
Because the form was not signed and returned by the tenant, the landlord did not start advertising. The landlord also seems to have understood that the tenant had changed her mind about leaving and was asking WINZ for assistance to pay the rent. The tenant confirmed that she sought a loan from WINZ, but not because she wanted to stay.
A landlord who agrees to end a fixed term tenancy early is entitled to recover any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the early termination (section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). While it may not be permissible to charge fixed costs (i.e., not the actual expenses reasonably incurred) it is understandable if, as here, the landlord sought confirmation in writing that the tenant wanted to end the tenancy early, before starting advertising for new tenants.
I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss. I find that the tenant is liable for rent to 18 January 2023 when she moved out.
The landlord provided water invoices and a water summary which prove the amount owing to the end of the tenancy for outgoings ($336.66).

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

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claimed $483.00 for general cleaning. The videos played at the hearing by the tenant (said to be taken on 19 January 2023) give an impression of a property that was left in a generally reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord’s photographs relating to the cleaning claim focus on a few areas of the property and include images taken closer-up. The landlord accepted that the bedrooms were fine but submitted that the oven, rangehood, dishwasher and stove all needed cleaning.
The landlord’s photographs show, in my view, that the downstairs toilet and shower tray, rangehood, and oven door were not left reasonably clean. I award $250.00 for cleaning.
The landlord claimed locksmith costs of $456.86 for changes to the front door and internal door locks. The landlord said the keys were not returned. The tenant said they only had a front door key to return. There were 5 bedrooms all of which had locks, but no keys were given for those rooms.
The relevant invoice states that the front door lock was broken. It is unclear whether this was damage caused by the tenant or her visitors but might suggest the front door lock needed to be replaced whether the key was returned or not.
It is disputed whether keys were given for the internal door locks, although the damage caused to an internal doorframe by a Police search (see further below) suggests at least one of the bedroom doors could be locked. I find on the balance of probabilities that there were keys given for the internal doors that were not returned, and award 50% of the locksmith invoice ($228.43).
The landlord claimed $460.00 for mowing the lawns and tidying the garden. The grounds appear, if not exactly perfect, at least reasonably tidy in the ingoing inspection report dated 23 June 2023. The garden was overgrown at the end of the tenancy. I award the costs claimed for garden work.
The landlord claimed $600.00 for missing and broken curtains. The landlord said about 3 curtains were missing or broken. The tenant said she took the curtains down and put them in storage under the stairs, where they found other curtains that they used. The landlord said there were no curtains in the cupboard under the stairs at the start of the tenancy, and she would have inspected them if there were.
I have reviewed both the ingoing inspection report dated 23 June 2022 and the exit inspection report dated 20 January 2023. I am unable to identify any missing curtains. All 5 downstairs bedrooms, the upstairs bedroom and lounge look to have curtains or blinds in the exit inspection report. It is unclear which curtains were broken.

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.
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 4 weeks' rent. The insurance excess was $550.00. The weekly rent was $850.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent.
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.
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.
The landlord claimed $24.35 for a broken toilet seat, $300.00 for repairing doors and walls, $90.00 for a missing light fitting, and $200.00 for a missing wardrobe organiser, plus labour charges of $800.00.
The toilet seat in the ensuite was cracked during the tenancy. The tenant did not know how this happened. While plastic toilet seats may crack over time through use, no evidence was submitted to establish that the seat was old. The interior decoration of the property generally looks quite new. The tenant has the onus of proving that the damage was not carelessly caused. The tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
The landlord’s photographs show scuff marks to the walls and damage to a door frame. Some of the wall marks look like they could be cleaned but several look to be deeper gouges into the paintwork. Some of them may have been caused by the tenant’s young children.
The tenant said the damage to the doorframe occurred when the Police executed a warrant to search the property. The Police interest in the property, which was said to relate to one of the occupants and not the tenant, suggests there may have been a suspicion the property was being used for an unlawful purpose (which would be a breach of section 40(2)(b) of the Act). The door is to the “upstairs master” bedroom according to the exit inspection report, which suggests, as mentioned above, that the door was locked.
I find that the tenant is liable for the cost of repairs to the walls and the doorframe, which is less than the insurance excess.
The landlord provided a photograph of a light fitting in the “upstairs master” bedroom which had been partially removed. The tenant said she had problems with some of the lights and asked someone to come round and check, but she did not know what had happened to the light fitting. I find that the tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
The landlord said a wardrobe organiser was missing. The tenant accepted that she had mistakenly taken this with her and could return it. If the tenant does not return the item within 14 days, the tenant will be liable to pay $200.00 in compensation to the landlord.
The landlord claimed $488.75 to re-fix a towel rail in the bathroom and install a new toilet roll holder in the downstairs toilet. This amount also included replacement lightbulbs and fixing a “gas bottle box”. The tenant said she took responsibility for the towel rail. The toilet roll holder broke off and she bought a new one and tried to install it.
I find that the toilet roll holder, which looks to have had quite a fragile attachment to the wall, is fair wear and tear. The towel rail fixture has come out of the wall at one end. The relevant invoice does not itemise the repairs. Assessing the cost of refixing the towel rail as best I can, and taking a conservative approach, I award $100.00. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee (section 102(4)(b) of the Act).
The landlord has been substantially successful, in terms of the award relative to the amount claimed. I grant suppression as requested (section 95A of the Act).

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4526193 — net $6,588.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,378.57	Rent arrears
Water rates	$336.66	Water rates
Cleaning	$250.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$228.43	Lock/key replacement
Lawns and Garden work	$460.00	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Doors, walls, light fitting, toilet seat	$1,214.35	Repairs: Doors, walls, light fitting, toilet seat
Repairs: towel rail	$100.00	Repairs: towel rail
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	32. I find that the toilet roll holder, which looks to have had quite a fragile attachment to the wall, is fair wear and tear.
Net award	$6,588.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,588.45

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Sarah Pepa must return the wardrobe organiser removed from the tenancy address by 5pm on Wednesday 5 July 2023. If the wardrobe organiser is not returned to the landlord by this date and time, Sarah Pepa must pay [The landlord/s] $200.00 immediately.
Sarah Pepa must pay [The landlord/s] $6,588.45 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 12 June 2023.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, outgoings, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The application relates to a residential tenancy for a fixed term from 18 July 2022 to 18 July 2023.

Is the tenant liable for rent arrears and water charges?

The landlord claimed rent of $7,378.57 to 18 January 2023, when the tenant vacated. The landlord said they sent the usual “break lease” form which included a break lease fee.
The tenant said the landlord did not start advertising the property after she let them know she wanted to leave early. She was told she was liable to pay rent to the end of the lease, so she stayed. She did not see the point of signing the break lease form if she was liable for rent to the end of the fixed term in any event, and she was “stuck” on paying a break fee.
Because the form was not signed and returned by the tenant, the landlord did not start advertising. The landlord also seems to have understood that the tenant had changed her mind about leaving and was asking WINZ for assistance to pay the rent. The tenant confirmed that she sought a loan from WINZ, but not because she wanted to stay.
A landlord who agrees to end a fixed term tenancy early is entitled to recover any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the early termination (section 44A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). While it may not be permissible to charge fixed costs (i.e., not the actual expenses reasonably incurred) it is understandable if, as here, the landlord sought confirmation in writing that the tenant wanted to end the tenancy early, before starting advertising for new tenants.
I am not satisfied that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss. I find that the tenant is liable for rent to 18 January 2023 when she moved out.
The landlord provided water invoices and a water summary which prove the amount owing to the end of the tenancy for outgoings ($336.66).

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

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claimed $483.00 for general cleaning. The videos played at the hearing by the tenant (said to be taken on 19 January 2023) give an impression of a property that was left in a generally reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord’s photographs relating to the cleaning claim focus on a few areas of the property and include images taken closer-up. The landlord accepted that the bedrooms were fine but submitted that the oven, rangehood, dishwasher and stove all needed cleaning.
The landlord’s photographs show, in my view, that the downstairs toilet and shower tray, rangehood, and oven door were not left reasonably clean. I award $250.00 for cleaning.
The landlord claimed locksmith costs of $456.86 for changes to the front door and internal door locks. The landlord said the keys were not returned. The tenant said they only had a front door key to return. There were 5 bedrooms all of which had locks, but no keys were given for those rooms.
The relevant invoice states that the front door lock was broken. It is unclear whether this was damage caused by the tenant or her visitors but might suggest the front door lock needed to be replaced whether the key was returned or not.
It is disputed whether keys were given for the internal door locks, although the damage caused to an internal doorframe by a Police search (see further below) suggests at least one of the bedroom doors could be locked. I find on the balance of probabilities that there were keys given for the internal doors that were not returned, and award 50% of the locksmith invoice ($228.43).
The landlord claimed $460.00 for mowing the lawns and tidying the garden. The grounds appear, if not exactly perfect, at least reasonably tidy in the ingoing inspection report dated 23 June 2023. The garden was overgrown at the end of the tenancy. I award the costs claimed for garden work.
The landlord claimed $600.00 for missing and broken curtains. The landlord said about 3 curtains were missing or broken. The tenant said she took the curtains down and put them in storage under the stairs, where they found other curtains that they used. The landlord said there were no curtains in the cupboard under the stairs at the start of the tenancy, and she would have inspected them if there were.
I have reviewed both the ingoing inspection report dated 23 June 2022 and the exit inspection report dated 20 January 2023. I am unable to identify any missing curtains. All 5 downstairs bedrooms, the upstairs bedroom and lounge look to have curtains or blinds in the exit inspection report. It is unclear which curtains were broken.

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.
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 4 weeks' rent. The insurance excess was $550.00. The weekly rent was $850.00.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent.
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.
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.
The landlord claimed $24.35 for a broken toilet seat, $300.00 for repairing doors and walls, $90.00 for a missing light fitting, and $200.00 for a missing wardrobe organiser, plus labour charges of $800.00.
The toilet seat in the ensuite was cracked during the tenancy. The tenant did not know how this happened. While plastic toilet seats may crack over time through use, no evidence was submitted to establish that the seat was old. The interior decoration of the property generally looks quite new. The tenant has the onus of proving that the damage was not carelessly caused. The tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
The landlord’s photographs show scuff marks to the walls and damage to a door frame. Some of the wall marks look like they could be cleaned but several look to be deeper gouges into the paintwork. Some of them may have been caused by the tenant’s young children.
The tenant said the damage to the doorframe occurred when the Police executed a warrant to search the property. The Police interest in the property, which was said to relate to one of the occupants and not the tenant, suggests there may have been a suspicion the property was being used for an unlawful purpose (which would be a breach of section 40(2)(b) of the Act). The door is to the “upstairs master” bedroom according to the exit inspection report, which suggests, as mentioned above, that the door was locked.
I find that the tenant is liable for the cost of repairs to the walls and the doorframe, which is less than the insurance excess.
The landlord provided a photograph of a light fitting in the “upstairs master” bedroom which had been partially removed. The tenant said she had problems with some of the lights and asked someone to come round and check, but she did not know what had happened to the light fitting. I find that the tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
The landlord said a wardrobe organiser was missing. The tenant accepted that she had mistakenly taken this with her and could return it. If the tenant does not return the item within 14 days, the tenant will be liable to pay $200.00 in compensation to the landlord.
The landlord claimed $488.75 to re-fix a towel rail in the bathroom and install a new toilet roll holder in the downstairs toilet. This amount also included replacement lightbulbs and fixing a “gas bottle box”. The tenant said she took responsibility for the towel rail. The toilet roll holder broke off and she bought a new one and tried to install it.
I find that the toilet roll holder, which looks to have had quite a fragile attachment to the wall, is fair wear and tear. The towel rail fixture has come out of the wall at one end. The relevant invoice does not itemise the repairs. Assessing the cost of refixing the towel rail as best I can, and taking a conservative approach, I award $100.00. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord’s application has been partly successful. I award the filing fee (section 102(4)(b) of the Act).
The landlord has been substantially successful, in terms of the award relative to the amount claimed. I grant suppression as requested (section 95A of the Act).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4526193 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4526193 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for rent arrears and water charges?

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

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant liable for rent arrears and water charges?

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

Frequently asked questions