What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4527371 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 4527371?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,950.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $985.55 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,722.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $601.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4527371?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4527371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9659304-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4527371 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 4527371?

Cleaning: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,950.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $985.55 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,722.86 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $601.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4527371?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4527371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9659304-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4527371 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4527371 — net $8,802.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24.4.23	$1,722.86	Rent arrears to 24.4.23
Water rates	$601.15	Water rates
Carpet cleaning	$172.50	Carpet cleaning
Pest control	$350.00	Pest control
Repairs to walls, door, benchtop, blinds, vanity	$4,950.00	Repairs to walls, door, benchtop, blinds, vanity
Dishwasher replacement	$985.55	Dishwasher replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,802.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,802.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Apaula Letuu must pay [The landlord/s] $10,280.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by Ms Kaur, appeared at the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. As the tenant had been notified, the hearing proceeded.
This is a fixed tenancy which began on 24 May 2022 and was due to end on 23 May 2023. The landlord filed an expedited abandonment application seeking termination of the tenancy. The Tribunal issued an order terminating the tenancy on 24 April 2023 and granting immediate possession of the premises to the landlord.
The landlord requested continuation of the application by way of a hearing, and amended its application to include claims for rent arrears, water charges, early termination fee, compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has received the bond.

How much is owed for rent and water charges?

This tenancy began on 24 May 2022. Following an order of the Tribunal on 24 April 2023, the tenancy was terminated immediately. The landlord has advised that as the new tenancy began on 22 April 2023, rent is sought up to 21 April 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Early termination fee
The landlord claims an early termination fee of $977.50, relying on clause 34 of the tenancy agreement. The landlord states that a new tenant was found within one week of advertising the premises, and the new tenancy began on 22 April 2023.
Clause 34 of the tenancy agreement is headed “Breaking a Fix Term Tenancy” (sic). This clause covers the situation where a tenant wishes to end the tenancy before the date the fixed term is due to end. It sets out the process to be followed, including a written request being made by the tenant to the landlord. Should the landlord consent to early release, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s reasonable costs, stated to be approximately $850.00. This cost would appear to mainly cover the cost of re-tenanting the premises. The clause then states that if the application is successful, then “the landlord and tenant shall enter into an agreement.”
In this case, there does not appear to be any agreement reached between the landlord and tenant concerning costs under clause 34. There is no evidence to show that the tenant applied in writing to the landlord, or that the landlord gave consent to early termination. Therefore, in the absence of the tenant taking the necessary steps under this clause, the landlord cannot claim such costs.
It may be noted that, at the end of the fixed term, the landlord would likely have incurred costs for re-letting the premises. In this case, the landlord re-let the premises soon after advertising for new tenants, and before the end of the fixed term.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord claims carpet cleaning and pest control costs. The landlord has provided evidence establishing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence includes inspection reports with photographs showing the condition of the premises at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The landlord does not claim for the cleaning or rubbish removal costs, as this was covered by insurance. An invoice for carpet cleaning and pest control was produced.
The amounts ordered are proved. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the RTA applies. 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 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) of the 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) of the RTA.
The landlord is insured for tenant damage and advises that the insurance excess is $550.00. The rent for this premises is $730.00 per week.
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 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.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Damage to walls • Doors • Kitchen benchtop • Blinds • Bathroom vanity door • Dishwasher
The landlord has produced photographic, oral and documentary evidence, including the relevant invoices. One invoice covers the work to repair damage to all the items listed above, except the dishwasher. There is a separate invoice for the dishwasher.
The landlord has explained that there was extensive damage to the walls in every room of the house. Blinds were broken or missing, three doors had to be re-hung, and the bathroom vanity door was missing. The house was brand new.
The landlord seeks $4,950.00, being the insurance excess for the repair of these items. The letter from the insurer shows the claim was treated as one involving 9 separate events, therefore, the total excess was $550.00 x 9, equalling $4,950.00.
In terms of the dishwasher, a technician advised that the dishwasher could not be repaired, and had to be replaced, due to the nature of the damage.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.
In making these awards, the principle of betterment has been taken into account, so the landlord is returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and is not better or worse off. Depreciation has also been considered. Exemplary damages for abandonment
The landlord also claims exemplary damages for abandonment. In the previous order, the Tribunal found that the tenant had abandoned the premises.
It is an unlawful act for the tenant to abandon the premises without reasonable excuse when the rent is in arrears. Exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 61(5) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
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 RTA.
In this case, the tenant did not attend the hearing and therefore, it is unclear why the premises was abandoned. Without hearing from the tenant, it is difficult to make a finding on intent, although it is acknowledged that intent can be inferred in certain circumstances. While I acknowledge the landlord’s perspective, and note the untidy condition that the premises was left in, and the need for repairs, in the absence of further evidence on this issue, I decline to award exemplary damages for abandonment. Filing fee
As the landlord has been mostly successful, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4527371 — net $8,802.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 24.4.23	$1,722.86	Rent arrears to 24.4.23
Water rates	$601.15	Water rates
Carpet cleaning	$172.50	Carpet cleaning
Pest control	$350.00	Pest control
Repairs to walls, door, benchtop, blinds, vanity	$4,950.00	Repairs to walls, door, benchtop, blinds, vanity
Dishwasher replacement	$985.55	Dishwasher replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$8,802.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$8,802.50

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Apaula Letuu must pay [The landlord/s] $10,280.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Only the landlord, represented by Ms Kaur, appeared at the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. As the tenant had been notified, the hearing proceeded.
This is a fixed tenancy which began on 24 May 2022 and was due to end on 23 May 2023. The landlord filed an expedited abandonment application seeking termination of the tenancy. The Tribunal issued an order terminating the tenancy on 24 April 2023 and granting immediate possession of the premises to the landlord.
The landlord requested continuation of the application by way of a hearing, and amended its application to include claims for rent arrears, water charges, early termination fee, compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The landlord has received the bond.

How much is owed for rent and water charges?

This tenancy began on 24 May 2022. Following an order of the Tribunal on 24 April 2023, the tenancy was terminated immediately. The landlord has advised that as the new tenancy began on 22 April 2023, rent is sought up to 21 April 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Early termination fee
The landlord claims an early termination fee of $977.50, relying on clause 34 of the tenancy agreement. The landlord states that a new tenant was found within one week of advertising the premises, and the new tenancy began on 22 April 2023.
Clause 34 of the tenancy agreement is headed “Breaking a Fix Term Tenancy” (sic). This clause covers the situation where a tenant wishes to end the tenancy before the date the fixed term is due to end. It sets out the process to be followed, including a written request being made by the tenant to the landlord. Should the landlord consent to early release, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s reasonable costs, stated to be approximately $850.00. This cost would appear to mainly cover the cost of re-tenanting the premises. The clause then states that if the application is successful, then “the landlord and tenant shall enter into an agreement.”
In this case, there does not appear to be any agreement reached between the landlord and tenant concerning costs under clause 34. There is no evidence to show that the tenant applied in writing to the landlord, or that the landlord gave consent to early termination. Therefore, in the absence of the tenant taking the necessary steps under this clause, the landlord cannot claim such costs.
It may be noted that, at the end of the fixed term, the landlord would likely have incurred costs for re-letting the premises. In this case, the landlord re-let the premises soon after advertising for new tenants, and before the end of the fixed term.
Accordingly, this claim is dismissed.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).
The landlord claims carpet cleaning and pest control costs. The landlord has provided evidence establishing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The evidence includes inspection reports with photographs showing the condition of the premises at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The landlord does not claim for the cleaning or rubbish removal costs, as this was covered by insurance. An invoice for carpet cleaning and pest control was produced.
The amounts ordered are proved. General principles regarding responsibility for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B of the RTA applies. 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 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) of the 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) of the RTA.
The landlord is insured for tenant damage and advises that the insurance excess is $550.00. The rent for this premises is $730.00 per week.
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 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.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

I am satisfied that the following damage was caused during the tenancy: • Damage to walls • Doors • Kitchen benchtop • Blinds • Bathroom vanity door • Dishwasher
The landlord has produced photographic, oral and documentary evidence, including the relevant invoices. One invoice covers the work to repair damage to all the items listed above, except the dishwasher. There is a separate invoice for the dishwasher.
The landlord has explained that there was extensive damage to the walls in every room of the house. Blinds were broken or missing, three doors had to be re-hung, and the bathroom vanity door was missing. The house was brand new.
The landlord seeks $4,950.00, being the insurance excess for the repair of these items. The letter from the insurer shows the claim was treated as one involving 9 separate events, therefore, the total excess was $550.00 x 9, equalling $4,950.00.
In terms of the dishwasher, a technician advised that the dishwasher could not be repaired, and had to be replaced, due to the nature of the damage.
The above damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amounts ordered are proved.
In making these awards, the principle of betterment has been taken into account, so the landlord is returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and is not better or worse off. Depreciation has also been considered. Exemplary damages for abandonment
The landlord also claims exemplary damages for abandonment. In the previous order, the Tribunal found that the tenant had abandoned the premises.
It is an unlawful act for the tenant to abandon the premises without reasonable excuse when the rent is in arrears. Exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 61(5) and Schedule 1A of the RTA.
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 RTA.
In this case, the tenant did not attend the hearing and therefore, it is unclear why the premises was abandoned. Without hearing from the tenant, it is difficult to make a finding on intent, although it is acknowledged that intent can be inferred in certain circumstances. While I acknowledge the landlord’s perspective, and note the untidy condition that the premises was left in, and the need for repairs, in the absence of further evidence on this issue, I decline to award exemplary damages for abandonment. Filing fee
As the landlord has been mostly successful, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4527371 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4527371 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent 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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent 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