What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4573890?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case but no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4573890?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,906.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4573890?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4573890?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9290659-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4573890?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case but no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4573890?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,906.15 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4573890?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4573890?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9290659-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

122 Fisher Avenue, Beckenham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4573890 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4573890 — net $926.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,906.15	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$926.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$926.59

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case but no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Regan Krillin Musson and Tayla-Shae Gibson must pay Barry Stephens and Shirley Stephens $926.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,906.15 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$1,926.59 Bond$1,000.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$926.59
The parties’ other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (3462653-007) to Barry Stephens and Shirley Stephens immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended hearings on 17 July and 14 August 2023.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, compensation for breach of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond within the prescribed period
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In each instance, the applicant is required to establish their claims to the required civil standard, on the balance of probabilities. Tenant Claim – Repair & Maintenance
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their age and character. It is inevitable that premises will require repair or maintenance from time to time. It is well established that the landlord’s repair obligation is not absolute. Rather, the landlord must repair within a reasonable timeframe after knowledge of the need for repair.
The tenant raised issues with hot water, electrical circuits, heat pump and drainage at the property. On each occasion the landlord investigated issues within a reasonable timeframe and, where advised by the relevant tradesperson, had repairs completed as quickly as possible.
The tenant’s evidence did not establish any undue delay by the landlord, or any outstanding maintenance issues that the landlord had failed to attend to. The claim in relation to repair and maintenance is dismissed. Tenant Claim – Bond
The tenant claimed, and the landlord accepted, that the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
In this instance, Mr Stephens had suffered a health event shortly before this tenancy started. He explained that he is responsible for submitting bonds to the Bond Centre and he understands the obligation to do so.
He said the failure to submit the bond on this occasion was a genuine oversight. He believed that he was functioning at his usual capacity after his medical event, but with the benefit of hindsight accepts that he was not. On balance, I find that the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond was not intentional. The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 April 2023. There was some dispute whether the tenants should be liable for rent to 24 April, but I find that they had moved out and the landlord had vacant possession as of 23 April 2023.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Ms Gibson said she was not aware of three missed rent payments in February and March 2023 until the landlord made this application. However, she acknowledged that her bank records show the payments did not go out as anticipated on three dates.
I award the landlord rent arrears of $1,906.15 to the end of the tenancy.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claimed that a cat door and a lock were damaged during the tenancy, and exterior wall cladding was drawn on requiring repair:
The tenant acknowledged that the cat door and surrounding ply was damaged when their small son tried to crawl through it. I find that the damage was not careless or intentional. It was accidentally caused, by a child.
Further the landlord did not establish its loss in relation to the cat door. The landlord sought the cost of replacement glass and provided a quote for the repair. The glass has been installed by another company and the landlord did not provide evidence of the repair cost.
The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to the lock and did not establish that this was damage or more than fair wear and tear.
The final claim was in relation to some blue markings on the cladding. The landlord provided photographs from the end of the tenancy. At that time the marks appear to be fresh. The landlord claims $303.60 for cladding repairs but has not incurred that cost. The property has been sold, and the landlord did not establish that it has any ongoing legal obligation to repair the cladding.
The landlord also did not establish that repair is necessarily required. In its oral evidence Mr Stephens said the landlord could not remove the marks “completely”. Mr and Mrs Stephens then clarified that the marks had faded. There was no photographic evidence of the current markings or any comment from the plasterer about whether recoating is required.
The landlord’s claims for repair costs are dismissed.
As the landlord succeeded with its claim for rent arrears, I have awarded reimbursement of its filing fee.
The tenants were not substantially successful with either claim, so I have not granted their require for suppression of their details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4573890 — net $926.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,906.15	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$926.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$926.59

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case but no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Regan Krillin Musson and Tayla-Shae Gibson must pay Barry Stephens and Shirley Stephens $926.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears$1,906.15 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$1,926.59 Bond$1,000.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$926.59
The parties’ other claims are dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,000.00 (3462653-007) to Barry Stephens and Shirley Stephens immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended hearings on 17 July and 14 August 2023.
The tenant applied for refund of the bond, compensation for breach of the landlord’s repair and maintenance obligations and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond within the prescribed period
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
In each instance, the applicant is required to establish their claims to the required civil standard, on the balance of probabilities. Tenant Claim – Repair & Maintenance
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their age and character. It is inevitable that premises will require repair or maintenance from time to time. It is well established that the landlord’s repair obligation is not absolute. Rather, the landlord must repair within a reasonable timeframe after knowledge of the need for repair.
The tenant raised issues with hot water, electrical circuits, heat pump and drainage at the property. On each occasion the landlord investigated issues within a reasonable timeframe and, where advised by the relevant tradesperson, had repairs completed as quickly as possible.
The tenant’s evidence did not establish any undue delay by the landlord, or any outstanding maintenance issues that the landlord had failed to attend to. The claim in relation to repair and maintenance is dismissed. Tenant Claim – Bond
The tenant claimed, and the landlord accepted, that the bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord 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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. Therefore, damages will not be awarded where non-lodgement is a genuine oversight, rather than an intentional act (Chief Executive for Housing New Zealand v Walls [1993] NZTT Auckland 548/92).
In this instance, Mr Stephens had suffered a health event shortly before this tenancy started. He explained that he is responsible for submitting bonds to the Bond Centre and he understands the obligation to do so.
He said the failure to submit the bond on this occasion was a genuine oversight. He believed that he was functioning at his usual capacity after his medical event, but with the benefit of hindsight accepts that he was not. On balance, I find that the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond was not intentional. The application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 23 April 2023. There was some dispute whether the tenants should be liable for rent to 24 April, but I find that they had moved out and the landlord had vacant possession as of 23 April 2023.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Ms Gibson said she was not aware of three missed rent payments in February and March 2023 until the landlord made this application. However, she acknowledged that her bank records show the payments did not go out as anticipated on three dates.
I award the landlord rent arrears of $1,906.15 to the end of the tenancy.

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. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
The landlord claimed that a cat door and a lock were damaged during the tenancy, and exterior wall cladding was drawn on requiring repair:
The tenant acknowledged that the cat door and surrounding ply was damaged when their small son tried to crawl through it. I find that the damage was not careless or intentional. It was accidentally caused, by a child.
Further the landlord did not establish its loss in relation to the cat door. The landlord sought the cost of replacement glass and provided a quote for the repair. The glass has been installed by another company and the landlord did not provide evidence of the repair cost.
The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to the lock and did not establish that this was damage or more than fair wear and tear.
The final claim was in relation to some blue markings on the cladding. The landlord provided photographs from the end of the tenancy. At that time the marks appear to be fresh. The landlord claims $303.60 for cladding repairs but has not incurred that cost. The property has been sold, and the landlord did not establish that it has any ongoing legal obligation to repair the cladding.
The landlord also did not establish that repair is necessarily required. In its oral evidence Mr Stephens said the landlord could not remove the marks “completely”. Mr and Mrs Stephens then clarified that the marks had faded. There was no photographic evidence of the current markings or any comment from the plasterer about whether recoating is required.
The landlord’s claims for repair costs are dismissed.
As the landlord succeeded with its claim for rent arrears, I have awarded reimbursement of its filing fee.
The tenants were not substantially successful with either claim, so I have not granted their require for suppression of their details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4573890 — Rent arrears at 122 Fisher Avenue, Beckenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4573890 — Rent arrears at 122 Fisher Avenue, Beckenham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions