What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4556917 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 4556917?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $451.36 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,985.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4556917?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4556917?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9550182-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4556917 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 4556917?

Cleaning: $450.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $451.36 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,985.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $150.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4556917?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4556917?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9550182-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4556917 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4556917 — net $3,056.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 April 2023	$150.00	Rent arrears to 14 April 2023
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Repair damaged floor	$451.36	Repair damaged floor
Compensation for damage to carpet	$1,985.00	Compensation for damage to carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,056.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,056.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Anisha Achankunju must pay [The landlord/s] $3,036.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord’s application for water rates is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation and/or exemplary damages for alleged breaches of her quiet enjoyment by the landlord. Background
The tenant started on 5 April 2014 and ended after the landlord served notice on 14 April 2023. It was a 9-year tenancy.
After the tenancy ended the landlord lodged their application for rent arrears and compensation on 23 April 2023.
The tenant then cross applied. Her application was filed on 4 October 2023.
The tenant requested an adjournment; asked for a weekend hearing time; and requested to attend by video call. I declined all those applications.
Both parties provided documentary evidence which I have considered in addition to the evidence they each gave at the hearing. Issues
The issue the Tribunal must determine are these: •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? If so, for how much? •Has the landlord proved a claim for cleaning costs? •Has the landlord proved claims for compensation for damage? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages for breaches of her quiet enjoyment? Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? If so, for how much?
The landlord provided a rent summary. It did not include a recent payment made by the tenant of $1,000.00. At the hearing the landlord confirmed that the payment of rent had been made. That reduced the landlord’s claim for rent to $150.00.
The tenant challenged the rent claim. She alleged that the bond (since refunded to her and credited to rent) was $1,500.00 which meant she owed no rent arrears.
The tenancy agreement records the bond as $1,350.00; this is what was refunded.
I find the landlord’s claim for rent arrears proved.

Has the landlord proved a claim for cleaning costs?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord provided photos in evidence that show considerable cleaning was required and some rubbish removal.
The landlord gave evidence that they spent 3 days cleaning the premises and removing rubbish. The landlord has claimed $450.00 as compensation. That equates to 15 hours of landlord time at $30.00 per hour.
The tenant agreed that not all rubbish was removed. I did not find her response to the photos the landlord produced to be persuasive; she seemed to suggest that the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy. They were not.
I find the landlord’s claim proved.

Has the landlord proved claims for compensation for damage?

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 RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA 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) 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) 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) RTA.
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) 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.
The landlord has replaced the carpet throughout the premises at a cost of $5,959.00.
The landlord’s photos show that the carpet was considerably damaged by staining.
The tenant accepted some, but not all, the damage to the carpets. Again, I did not find her response to the photographic evidence to be persuasive.
I find that the tenant caused significant damage to the carpets and the landlord was justified in replacing them.
The carpets were 3 years old at the start of the tenancy, so 12 years old at the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal must take depreciation and fair wear and tear into account when assessing claims for compensation for damage to chattels such as carpet.
At 12 years old, the carpets were about two-thirds depreciated for use in residential tenancy premises.
I have awarded the landlord one-third of the replacement cost to take depreciation and fair wear and tear into account.
Separately, the landlord claimed the cost of repairing an area of floor underneath where the tenant’s fridge was kept.
Again, the tenant denied that her fridge caused any damage. While she accepted there was some damage to the carpet caused by the fridge leaking, she did not accept that the floor was damaged because of leaking as the floor was dry at the end of the tenancy.
I have assessed the evidence. I find it probable that the tenants fridge leaked over time and caused the damage to the flooring. This is careless damage for which the tenant is liable.
That the flooring and sub structures are now dry just means that the leak occurred as the tenant said, in 2021.
As with the claim for carpet damage, the tenant denied liability, but then said her insurance would cover the damage and had accepted her insurance claim.
She said it was for the landlord to contact her insurer to be indemnified for the loss.
The Tribunal does not direct parties to contact insurers. If the tenant’s insurer has accepted her claims, that is for her to pursue.
I find the landlord’s claim for the repair of the damaged flooring proved on the evidence presented to the Tribunal. I have awarded the repair cost. This is not a claim that should be depreciated. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages for breaches of her quiet enjoyment?
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when assessing claims for compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
If a breach of quiet enjoyment amounts to harassment, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages.
Some of the tenant’s claims date back to 2014 and 2016. Generally, claims must be made within 6 years of the act occurring that is alleged to constitute a breach. The Limitation Act provides a defence where claims are made more than 6 years after the event.
Although the landlord did not specifically refer to the Limitation Act as a defence to some of the tenant’s claims, it is still a relevant factor for the Tribunal to consider.
The tenant made many allegations against the landlord including that he entered the premises often without notice; that he used her toothpaste as a cleaner; that he suggested he might move in with her; and that he would leave letters at her door in the early hours of the morning.
She alleged that the landlord installed cameras that interfered with her privacy and that he would unlock her locked doors during the night.
The landlord denied the tenant’s allegations. He said he only entered the premises twice, in 2014 and 2015 for notified inspections when the tenant did not open her door and left as soon as he was asked to. He said he trialled a security camera for his wife’s protection as he travelled often. He adjusted it to focus on the driveway only. He denied interfering with the tenant’s privacy.
The Tribunal regards claims such as those made by the tenant with caution because they were made well after the tenancy ended and after the landlord had lodged his application.
The landlord said he thought the tenant’s application was in retaliation for his application. The Tribunal thinks it was too.
Other than make the allegations, many now historic, the tenant provided little evidence for the Tribunal to conclude that the landlord had breached her quiet enjoyment.
When the Tribunal enquired why she had not acted sooner, the tenant said she did not know how to access Tenancy Services or the Tribunal. Yet, the landlord produced evidence that she, as a landlord, was a party in a Tribunal application in 2012. She said she took no part in that and was assisted by someone else.
The Tribunal did not find the allegations made by the tenant against the landlord to be credible. She did not adequately explain why she had waited more than 5 months to make her application. Some of the allegations (for example, that the landlord used her toothpaste to clean) were frankly odd.
Evidentially, there is little if anything to prove the allegations made by the tenant.
An important function of a first instance Tribunal is the assessment of witness credibility. Having seen and heard both parties I do not find the tenant’s allegations against the landlord proved.
I dismiss the tenant’s application. Result
The tenant will pay the landlord $3,056.80 which includes reimbursement of the filing fee on the successful application.
The tenant’s application is dismissed. Name suppression
Both parties sought a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to a name suppression order because their application is substantially successful. The tenant is not entitled to an order because her application, and her defence to the landlord’s application, is not successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4556917 — net $3,056.80 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 April 2023	$150.00	Rent arrears to 14 April 2023
Cleaning	$450.00	Cleaning
Repair damaged floor	$451.36	Repair damaged floor
Compensation for damage to carpet	$1,985.00	Compensation for damage to carpet
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,056.80
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,056.80

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Anisha Achankunju must pay [The landlord/s] $3,036.36 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
The landlord’s application for water rates is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for compensation and/or exemplary damages for alleged breaches of her quiet enjoyment by the landlord. Background
The tenant started on 5 April 2014 and ended after the landlord served notice on 14 April 2023. It was a 9-year tenancy.
After the tenancy ended the landlord lodged their application for rent arrears and compensation on 23 April 2023.
The tenant then cross applied. Her application was filed on 4 October 2023.
The tenant requested an adjournment; asked for a weekend hearing time; and requested to attend by video call. I declined all those applications.
Both parties provided documentary evidence which I have considered in addition to the evidence they each gave at the hearing. Issues
The issue the Tribunal must determine are these: •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? If so, for how much? •Has the landlord proved a claim for cleaning costs? •Has the landlord proved claims for compensation for damage? •Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages for breaches of her quiet enjoyment? Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? If so, for how much?
The landlord provided a rent summary. It did not include a recent payment made by the tenant of $1,000.00. At the hearing the landlord confirmed that the payment of rent had been made. That reduced the landlord’s claim for rent to $150.00.
The tenant challenged the rent claim. She alleged that the bond (since refunded to her and credited to rent) was $1,500.00 which meant she owed no rent arrears.
The tenancy agreement records the bond as $1,350.00; this is what was refunded.
I find the landlord’s claim for rent arrears proved.

Has the landlord proved a claim for cleaning costs?

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord provided photos in evidence that show considerable cleaning was required and some rubbish removal.
The landlord gave evidence that they spent 3 days cleaning the premises and removing rubbish. The landlord has claimed $450.00 as compensation. That equates to 15 hours of landlord time at $30.00 per hour.
The tenant agreed that not all rubbish was removed. I did not find her response to the photos the landlord produced to be persuasive; she seemed to suggest that the premises were left reasonably clean and tidy. They were not.
I find the landlord’s claim proved.

Has the landlord proved claims for compensation for damage?

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 RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA 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) 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) 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) RTA.
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) 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.
The landlord has replaced the carpet throughout the premises at a cost of $5,959.00.
The landlord’s photos show that the carpet was considerably damaged by staining.
The tenant accepted some, but not all, the damage to the carpets. Again, I did not find her response to the photographic evidence to be persuasive.
I find that the tenant caused significant damage to the carpets and the landlord was justified in replacing them.
The carpets were 3 years old at the start of the tenancy, so 12 years old at the end of the tenancy.
The Tribunal must take depreciation and fair wear and tear into account when assessing claims for compensation for damage to chattels such as carpet.
At 12 years old, the carpets were about two-thirds depreciated for use in residential tenancy premises.
I have awarded the landlord one-third of the replacement cost to take depreciation and fair wear and tear into account.
Separately, the landlord claimed the cost of repairing an area of floor underneath where the tenant’s fridge was kept.
Again, the tenant denied that her fridge caused any damage. While she accepted there was some damage to the carpet caused by the fridge leaking, she did not accept that the floor was damaged because of leaking as the floor was dry at the end of the tenancy.
I have assessed the evidence. I find it probable that the tenants fridge leaked over time and caused the damage to the flooring. This is careless damage for which the tenant is liable.
That the flooring and sub structures are now dry just means that the leak occurred as the tenant said, in 2021.
As with the claim for carpet damage, the tenant denied liability, but then said her insurance would cover the damage and had accepted her insurance claim.
She said it was for the landlord to contact her insurer to be indemnified for the loss.
The Tribunal does not direct parties to contact insurers. If the tenant’s insurer has accepted her claims, that is for her to pursue.
I find the landlord’s claim for the repair of the damaged flooring proved on the evidence presented to the Tribunal. I have awarded the repair cost. This is not a claim that should be depreciated. Has the tenant proved a claim for compensation and/or exemplary damages for breaches of her quiet enjoyment?
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities.
Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when assessing claims for compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: (a) The intention of the person; (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
If a breach of quiet enjoyment amounts to harassment, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages.
Some of the tenant’s claims date back to 2014 and 2016. Generally, claims must be made within 6 years of the act occurring that is alleged to constitute a breach. The Limitation Act provides a defence where claims are made more than 6 years after the event.
Although the landlord did not specifically refer to the Limitation Act as a defence to some of the tenant’s claims, it is still a relevant factor for the Tribunal to consider.
The tenant made many allegations against the landlord including that he entered the premises often without notice; that he used her toothpaste as a cleaner; that he suggested he might move in with her; and that he would leave letters at her door in the early hours of the morning.
She alleged that the landlord installed cameras that interfered with her privacy and that he would unlock her locked doors during the night.
The landlord denied the tenant’s allegations. He said he only entered the premises twice, in 2014 and 2015 for notified inspections when the tenant did not open her door and left as soon as he was asked to. He said he trialled a security camera for his wife’s protection as he travelled often. He adjusted it to focus on the driveway only. He denied interfering with the tenant’s privacy.
The Tribunal regards claims such as those made by the tenant with caution because they were made well after the tenancy ended and after the landlord had lodged his application.
The landlord said he thought the tenant’s application was in retaliation for his application. The Tribunal thinks it was too.
Other than make the allegations, many now historic, the tenant provided little evidence for the Tribunal to conclude that the landlord had breached her quiet enjoyment.
When the Tribunal enquired why she had not acted sooner, the tenant said she did not know how to access Tenancy Services or the Tribunal. Yet, the landlord produced evidence that she, as a landlord, was a party in a Tribunal application in 2012. She said she took no part in that and was assisted by someone else.
The Tribunal did not find the allegations made by the tenant against the landlord to be credible. She did not adequately explain why she had waited more than 5 months to make her application. Some of the allegations (for example, that the landlord used her toothpaste to clean) were frankly odd.
Evidentially, there is little if anything to prove the allegations made by the tenant.
An important function of a first instance Tribunal is the assessment of witness credibility. Having seen and heard both parties I do not find the tenant’s allegations against the landlord proved.
I dismiss the tenant’s application. Result
The tenant will pay the landlord $3,056.80 which includes reimbursement of the filing fee on the successful application.
The tenant’s application is dismissed. Name suppression
Both parties sought a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to a name suppression order because their application is substantially successful. The tenant is not entitled to an order because her application, and her defence to the landlord’s application, is not successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4556917 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4556917 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for cleaning costs?

Has the landlord proved claims for compensation for damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord proved a claim for cleaning costs?

Has the landlord proved claims for compensation for damage?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions