What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4614509 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 4614509?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $417.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $174.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614509?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9376367-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4614509 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 4614509?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $417.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $174.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4614509?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4614509?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9376367-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4614509 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4614509 — net $397.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$174.25	Window repairs
Pest control	$417.00	Pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$397.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$397.01

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $397.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] appeared for the landlord. [The tenant/s] appeared and was assisted by his son, [redacted].
The tenancy commenced on 25 July 2017. The landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy, citing an intention to conduct extensive renovations, making it impracticable for the tenant to remain in occupation. Consequently, the tenancy ended on 01 June 2023. The parties then agreed for general cleaning and rubbish removal costs to be deducted from the bond. The balance of the bond, and a rent overpayment, a total of $214.68, is presently held by the landlord. On 26 June 2023, the landlord filed a claim that the tenant was responsible for a cockroach infestation and damage to two windows at the front of the property. The landlord is claiming $348.00 for window repairs, and $834.00 for eradication costs.
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”).

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. A tenant is liable for the cost of pest eradication if it can be established, more likely than not, that the presence of those pests has resulted from an act or omission by the tenant.
The landlord has produced photographs taken at two inspections conducted during the tenancy and at the end. The landlord described the property as “filthy,” and unfortunately, this description appears accurate. [The landlord’s representative/s], who conducted the end of tenancy inspection reported finding “hundreds” of German cockroaches in the kitchen. A photograph taken shows numerous cockroaches in the kitchen sink. [The landlord’s representative/s] states that during the tenancy several 14-day notices were issued for not keeping the property reasonably clean and tidy. None of those have been produced. The pest controllers invoice indicates five treatments were required, with the controller noting an “extremely heavy infestation evident.” The landlord argues that the tenant’s lack of cleanliness was the cause of the infestation.
The tenant states that throughout the tenancy they repeatedly raised concerns about the property’s condition and infestation with the previous property manager, who retired at the beginning of the year. The tenant states that they did so orally. The tenant refers to the photographs of the property’s interior showing it to be in a poor condition. I note that there is mould on the bathroom ceiling, and the step into the shower cubicle is completely rotted away. A property inspection report prepared by the previous property manager suggested to the landlord that the tenancy be terminated, and extensive repairs conducted. The tenant stated that the property had numerous gaps and holes through which cockroaches could enter. The tenant claims that despite seeking assistance to control the infestation, none was provided. [The landlord’s representative/s] states that when she conducted an inspection in February 2023, that no cockroaches had been detected. [The landlord’s representative/s] states that the landlord manages the complex of units, of which the property in question is one, and that no other tenant has reported infestation issues. The tenant states that other tenants had expressed their concerns but were reluctant to raise them for fear of jeopardising their own tenancies. During the hearing, the tenant disclosed that they had suffered a significant head injury followed by a cognitive decline. This was confirmed by the tenant’s son, who stated that they occasionally visited to help with domestic chores. The tenant’s son acknowledged that the property had not been kept in the cleanest condition, and that this may have contributed to the infestation. Based on the evidence and photographs, it appears that a higher level of care and support may have been needed.
On the evidence, while I cannot rule out the general condition of the property as a factor, I am however satisfied that the general state of uncleanliness likely played a greater role, and thus that the tenant bears partial liability. On that basis I award the landlord half of the amount sought, which is $417.00.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to two windows at the front of the property. The amount claimed to repair both windows is $348.00.
To succeed with a claim for damage a landlord must prove that the damage 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 RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August 2019, 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, which in this case is $500.00 per claim, 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) 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 Act.
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) 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.
There is no pre tenancy checklist or photographs showing the condition of the windows at the commencement of the tenancy. [The landlord’s representative/s] states that the damage was discovered during her inspection in February 2023 but had likely been outstanding for some time. The tenant states that the damage to a window nearest the front door had been caused during a burglary on or about 21 July 2022, which was reported to Police. A Police complaint acknowledgement form has been produced. The tenant states that he advised the previous property manager but that nothing was done to repair the window. [The landlord’s representative/s] states that there is no record of the matter being raised with the previous property manager. Although the damage appears to have occurred during the tenancy, I am not satisfied that it was caused by the tenant or someone at the property with the tenant’s permission. The claim for damage to that window is declined.
The other window concerned is in the same set at the front of the property. The tenant states that this was caused by someone at the property with their permission. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and was likely the result of carelessness. [The landlord’s representative/s] states that both windows cost the same to repair, and on that basis, I award half the amount sought or $174. 25. Costs
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful and pursuant to section 95A of the Act is granted name suppression.
Although the tenant has not been substantially successful, they have been partly successful, they also seek name suppression
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.
In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2]-[3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one.
The mere fact that being an unsuccessful respondent may impact on future applications for rental properties is not on its own sufficient reason to grant name suppression. In this case however, I am satisfied that the tenant’s cognitive decline likely had a bearing on the claims, which in my view warrants a departure from the general principle. In my view, while there is a public interest in the facts of this case, and reasoning of the decision, that interest does not in my view necessarily extend to the name of the tenant. On that basis I also order suppression of the tenant’s name.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4614509 — net $397.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$174.25	Window repairs
Pest control	$417.00	Pest control
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$397.01
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$397.01

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $397.01 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative/s] appeared for the landlord. [The tenant/s] appeared and was assisted by his son, [redacted].
The tenancy commenced on 25 July 2017. The landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy, citing an intention to conduct extensive renovations, making it impracticable for the tenant to remain in occupation. Consequently, the tenancy ended on 01 June 2023. The parties then agreed for general cleaning and rubbish removal costs to be deducted from the bond. The balance of the bond, and a rent overpayment, a total of $214.68, is presently held by the landlord. On 26 June 2023, the landlord filed a claim that the tenant was responsible for a cockroach infestation and damage to two windows at the front of the property. The landlord is claiming $348.00 for window repairs, and $834.00 for eradication costs.
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”).

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. A tenant is liable for the cost of pest eradication if it can be established, more likely than not, that the presence of those pests has resulted from an act or omission by the tenant.
The landlord has produced photographs taken at two inspections conducted during the tenancy and at the end. The landlord described the property as “filthy,” and unfortunately, this description appears accurate. [The landlord’s representative/s], who conducted the end of tenancy inspection reported finding “hundreds” of German cockroaches in the kitchen. A photograph taken shows numerous cockroaches in the kitchen sink. [The landlord’s representative/s] states that during the tenancy several 14-day notices were issued for not keeping the property reasonably clean and tidy. None of those have been produced. The pest controllers invoice indicates five treatments were required, with the controller noting an “extremely heavy infestation evident.” The landlord argues that the tenant’s lack of cleanliness was the cause of the infestation.
The tenant states that throughout the tenancy they repeatedly raised concerns about the property’s condition and infestation with the previous property manager, who retired at the beginning of the year. The tenant states that they did so orally. The tenant refers to the photographs of the property’s interior showing it to be in a poor condition. I note that there is mould on the bathroom ceiling, and the step into the shower cubicle is completely rotted away. A property inspection report prepared by the previous property manager suggested to the landlord that the tenancy be terminated, and extensive repairs conducted. The tenant stated that the property had numerous gaps and holes through which cockroaches could enter. The tenant claims that despite seeking assistance to control the infestation, none was provided. [The landlord’s representative/s] states that when she conducted an inspection in February 2023, that no cockroaches had been detected. [The landlord’s representative/s] states that the landlord manages the complex of units, of which the property in question is one, and that no other tenant has reported infestation issues. The tenant states that other tenants had expressed their concerns but were reluctant to raise them for fear of jeopardising their own tenancies. During the hearing, the tenant disclosed that they had suffered a significant head injury followed by a cognitive decline. This was confirmed by the tenant’s son, who stated that they occasionally visited to help with domestic chores. The tenant’s son acknowledged that the property had not been kept in the cleanest condition, and that this may have contributed to the infestation. Based on the evidence and photographs, it appears that a higher level of care and support may have been needed.
On the evidence, while I cannot rule out the general condition of the property as a factor, I am however satisfied that the general state of uncleanliness likely played a greater role, and thus that the tenant bears partial liability. On that basis I award the landlord half of the amount sought, which is $417.00.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is responsible for damage to two windows at the front of the property. The amount claimed to repair both windows is $348.00.
To succeed with a claim for damage a landlord must prove that the damage 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 RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August 2019, 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, which in this case is $500.00 per claim, 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) 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 Act.
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) 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.
There is no pre tenancy checklist or photographs showing the condition of the windows at the commencement of the tenancy. [The landlord’s representative/s] states that the damage was discovered during her inspection in February 2023 but had likely been outstanding for some time. The tenant states that the damage to a window nearest the front door had been caused during a burglary on or about 21 July 2022, which was reported to Police. A Police complaint acknowledgement form has been produced. The tenant states that he advised the previous property manager but that nothing was done to repair the window. [The landlord’s representative/s] states that there is no record of the matter being raised with the previous property manager. Although the damage appears to have occurred during the tenancy, I am not satisfied that it was caused by the tenant or someone at the property with the tenant’s permission. The claim for damage to that window is declined.
The other window concerned is in the same set at the front of the property. The tenant states that this was caused by someone at the property with their permission. I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and was likely the result of carelessness. [The landlord’s representative/s] states that both windows cost the same to repair, and on that basis, I award half the amount sought or $174. 25. Costs
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful and pursuant to section 95A of the Act is granted name suppression.
Although the tenant has not been substantially successful, they have been partly successful, they also seek name suppression
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.
In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2]-[3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one.
The mere fact that being an unsuccessful respondent may impact on future applications for rental properties is not on its own sufficient reason to grant name suppression. In this case however, I am satisfied that the tenant’s cognitive decline likely had a bearing on the claims, which in my view warrants a departure from the general principle. In my view, while there is a public interest in the facts of this case, and reasoning of the decision, that interest does not in my view necessarily extend to the name of the tenant. On that basis I also order suppression of the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614509 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4614509 — Property damage

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 the 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 the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions