What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4622129 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 4622129?

Property Damage: $46.99 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,875.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Tile: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Digital Lock: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Main Door: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Wash Basin: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $313.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4622129?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4622129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9771754-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4622129 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 4622129?

Property Damage: $46.99 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,875.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Tile: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Digital Lock: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Main Door: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Walls: $900.00 awarded to landlord; Wash Basin: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $313.04 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4622129?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4622129?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9771754-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

26 Korokio Lane, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4622129 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4622129 — net $1,755.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,875.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$313.04	Water rates
Repairs: Walls	$900.00	Repairs: Walls
Repairs: Digital lock	$400.00	Repairs: Digital lock
Repairs: Main door	$400.00	Repairs: Main door
Repairs: Wash basin	$400.00	Repairs: Wash basin
Repairs: Bathroom tile	$400.00	Repairs: Bathroom tile
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Heat pump remote and batteries	$46.99	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Heat pump remote and batteries
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,755.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,755.47

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
An Order under these two application numbers was issued by the Tribunal on 1 November 2023. That Order was withdrawn. This Order replaces the Order of 1 November 2023. 3. 4.

Reasons

The landlord’s following applications are dismissed: a. Cleaning and rubbish removal; b. Damage to the garage door; c. Damage to the monitor and doorstopper; d. Exemplary damages for dumping rubbish in other people’s skip bins; e. Exemplary damages for leaving rubbish on the road; f. Exemplary damages for failing to reinstate minor alterations; Reasons:
The landlord and the tenant [Tenant 1] attended the hearing; the second tenant, [Tenant 2] did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy began on 4 January 2023 with [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1] as the named tenants.
[Tenant 1] gave the following evidence: a. When she signed the Tenancy Agreement, and up until August 2023, [Tenant 1] was 17 years old, and as such a minor (under the definition in the Contract and Commercial Law acts Act 2017.) b. After taking on the tenancy she was the victim of domestic violence. The police were involved, and [Tenant 2] was removed from the property on 2 May 2023. c. [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1] were each receiving support from Work and Income New Zealand including a payment of $375.00 (each) for rent. d. When [Tenant 2]left the property, WINZ ceased paying his share of the rent and rent arrears began to accrue. e. [Tenant 1] received the assistance of a youth coach who advised her of section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. This section allows a tenant who is the victim of family violence to withdraw from a tenancy by giving 48 hours’ notice. An application to do so is required. [Tenant 1]’s youth coach was not able to assist with the application and [Tenant 1] didn’t know how to make the application herself. f. [Tenant 1] advised her landlord that she had been the victim of family violence and she wanted to leave the tenancy for this reason. She was told by the landlord she couldn’t leave the tenancy because it was a fixed-term tenancy. g. [Tenant 1] was then told by her youth coach that if [Tenant 2]’s name was removed from the tenancy agreement, WINZ would then pay the full $750.00 per week rent for the tenancy which was now solely in her name. She would also be able to make a “hardship application” to have her fixed term tenancy reduced so she could leave the tenancy. h. After [Tenant 2]’s name was removed from the Tenancy Agreement, WINZ declined to pay the full rental.
The landlord confirmed she was aware of the domestic violence provision in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 when [Tenant 1] approached her about it.
Section 89 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, allows for the cancellation of a contract where under section 87 of the Act, the contract involves a minor and was not fair and reasonable.
The Tenancy Agreement was a standard Tenancy Services agreement, and I have not seen anything that leads me to believe that at the time of signing, it was unfair that [Tenant 1] despite being a minor, entered into the contract.
The landlord provided a rent summary that shows as of 24 June 2023 rent arrears amounted to $1,875.00.
The landlord provided a statement which establishes that water rates of $313.04 are outstanding.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord is seeking $100.00 for cleaning and rubbish removal. She provided photos that showed some discarded toys in one of the rooms and some rooms that had not been properly cleaned.
[Tenant 1] pointed out that in one of the landlord’s photos, [Tenant 1]’s belongings are visible. [Tenant 1] claimed that when the landlord took her photos [Tenant 1] had not finished moving out. [Tenant 1] showed three videos she made after cleaning the premises in which all her belongings have been removed and the premises look clean and tidy.
The landlord stated that despite the appearances in these videos, the oven hadn’t been cleaned and other areas were still dirty. The information as provided does not support this, and no invoice for cleaning or rubbish removal has been provided.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Batteries for the digital lock.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Some patches and repaints to walls that were not completed to a sufficiently high standard by the tenant; b. Dents and kick marks to the main door; c. Damage to the digital lock for the main door; d. A broken washbasin; e. Damage to a tile in the bathroom; f. Damage to the heat pump remote.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord claimed $400.00 insurance excess for damage to the garage door. The photos provided show a dent in what looks to be a metal panel of a garage door. I do not consider it to be a large dent, it is not unsightly and there was no evidence given that the door became unserviceable as a result of the dent.
[Tenant 1] stated that the garage door received the dent when a cousin leaned on it. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I accept this evidence from [Tenant 1]. I do not consider leaning on the garage door to be a careless act. The evidence as presented points to the garage door being of a light construction that may be prone to superficial damage. I consider the dent to be fair wear and tear.
The landlord sought exemplary damages for rubbish bags on the street, and rubbish that had been put in someone else’s skip bin.
The landlord’s evidence was that a tenant from another house on the same street stated that it was a tenant from [Tenant 1]’s property that left the rubbish on the street. The landlord also stated that a building manager had come to the same conclusion about the rubbish in the skip bin.
[Tenant 1] did not comment on these claims.
Neither witness appeared in before the Tribunal or provided a signed and dated statement. I note that no harm or expense has been claimed by the landlord. I do not find the evidence as provided by the landlord sufficient to prove these claims on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord sought exemplary damages a shelf that was installed on a wall in the house and not removed at the end of the tenancy.
[Tenant 1] explained the shelf is a K’Mart shelf with a simple installation process.
The remedy for the installation of the shelf in the first instance would be to remove it and seek compensation for the remediation. The landlord gave evidence that the shelf has been left in place and the property has been re- tenanted. The landlord has not suffered any damage or expense as a result of the installation.
I decline to award exemplary damages for this matter, and the claim is dismissed accordingly.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4622129 — net $1,755.47 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,875.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$313.04	Water rates
Repairs: Walls	$900.00	Repairs: Walls
Repairs: Digital lock	$400.00	Repairs: Digital lock
Repairs: Main door	$400.00	Repairs: Main door
Repairs: Wash basin	$400.00	Repairs: Wash basin
Repairs: Bathroom tile	$400.00	Repairs: Bathroom tile
Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Heat pump remote and batteries	$46.99	Electrical fittings replacement/repair: Heat pump remote and batteries
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,755.47
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,755.47

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
An Order under these two application numbers was issued by the Tribunal on 1 November 2023. That Order was withdrawn. This Order replaces the Order of 1 November 2023. 3. 4.

Reasons

The landlord’s following applications are dismissed: a. Cleaning and rubbish removal; b. Damage to the garage door; c. Damage to the monitor and doorstopper; d. Exemplary damages for dumping rubbish in other people’s skip bins; e. Exemplary damages for leaving rubbish on the road; f. Exemplary damages for failing to reinstate minor alterations; Reasons:
The landlord and the tenant [Tenant 1] attended the hearing; the second tenant, [Tenant 2] did not attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy began on 4 January 2023 with [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1] as the named tenants.
[Tenant 1] gave the following evidence: a. When she signed the Tenancy Agreement, and up until August 2023, [Tenant 1] was 17 years old, and as such a minor (under the definition in the Contract and Commercial Law acts Act 2017.) b. After taking on the tenancy she was the victim of domestic violence. The police were involved, and [Tenant 2] was removed from the property on 2 May 2023. c. [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1] were each receiving support from Work and Income New Zealand including a payment of $375.00 (each) for rent. d. When [Tenant 2]left the property, WINZ ceased paying his share of the rent and rent arrears began to accrue. e. [Tenant 1] received the assistance of a youth coach who advised her of section 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. This section allows a tenant who is the victim of family violence to withdraw from a tenancy by giving 48 hours’ notice. An application to do so is required. [Tenant 1]’s youth coach was not able to assist with the application and [Tenant 1] didn’t know how to make the application herself. f. [Tenant 1] advised her landlord that she had been the victim of family violence and she wanted to leave the tenancy for this reason. She was told by the landlord she couldn’t leave the tenancy because it was a fixed-term tenancy. g. [Tenant 1] was then told by her youth coach that if [Tenant 2]’s name was removed from the tenancy agreement, WINZ would then pay the full $750.00 per week rent for the tenancy which was now solely in her name. She would also be able to make a “hardship application” to have her fixed term tenancy reduced so she could leave the tenancy. h. After [Tenant 2]’s name was removed from the Tenancy Agreement, WINZ declined to pay the full rental.
The landlord confirmed she was aware of the domestic violence provision in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 when [Tenant 1] approached her about it.
Section 89 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, allows for the cancellation of a contract where under section 87 of the Act, the contract involves a minor and was not fair and reasonable.
The Tenancy Agreement was a standard Tenancy Services agreement, and I have not seen anything that leads me to believe that at the time of signing, it was unfair that [Tenant 1] despite being a minor, entered into the contract.
The landlord provided a rent summary that shows as of 24 June 2023 rent arrears amounted to $1,875.00.
The landlord provided a statement which establishes that water rates of $313.04 are outstanding.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord is seeking $100.00 for cleaning and rubbish removal. She provided photos that showed some discarded toys in one of the rooms and some rooms that had not been properly cleaned.
[Tenant 1] pointed out that in one of the landlord’s photos, [Tenant 1]’s belongings are visible. [Tenant 1] claimed that when the landlord took her photos [Tenant 1] had not finished moving out. [Tenant 1] showed three videos she made after cleaning the premises in which all her belongings have been removed and the premises look clean and tidy.
The landlord stated that despite the appearances in these videos, the oven hadn’t been cleaned and other areas were still dirty. The information as provided does not support this, and no invoice for cleaning or rubbish removal has been provided.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a. Batteries for the digital lock.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Some patches and repaints to walls that were not completed to a sufficiently high standard by the tenant; b. Dents and kick marks to the main door; c. Damage to the digital lock for the main door; d. A broken washbasin; e. Damage to a tile in the bathroom; f. Damage to the heat pump remote.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord claimed $400.00 insurance excess for damage to the garage door. The photos provided show a dent in what looks to be a metal panel of a garage door. I do not consider it to be a large dent, it is not unsightly and there was no evidence given that the door became unserviceable as a result of the dent.
[Tenant 1] stated that the garage door received the dent when a cousin leaned on it. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I accept this evidence from [Tenant 1]. I do not consider leaning on the garage door to be a careless act. The evidence as presented points to the garage door being of a light construction that may be prone to superficial damage. I consider the dent to be fair wear and tear.
The landlord sought exemplary damages for rubbish bags on the street, and rubbish that had been put in someone else’s skip bin.
The landlord’s evidence was that a tenant from another house on the same street stated that it was a tenant from [Tenant 1]’s property that left the rubbish on the street. The landlord also stated that a building manager had come to the same conclusion about the rubbish in the skip bin.
[Tenant 1] did not comment on these claims.
Neither witness appeared in before the Tribunal or provided a signed and dated statement. I note that no harm or expense has been claimed by the landlord. I do not find the evidence as provided by the landlord sufficient to prove these claims on the balance of probabilities.
The landlord sought exemplary damages a shelf that was installed on a wall in the house and not removed at the end of the tenancy.
[Tenant 1] explained the shelf is a K’Mart shelf with a simple installation process.
The remedy for the installation of the shelf in the first instance would be to remove it and seek compensation for the remediation. The landlord gave evidence that the shelf has been left in place and the property has been re- tenanted. The landlord has not suffered any damage or expense as a result of the installation.
I decline to award exemplary damages for this matter, and the claim is dismissed accordingly.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4622129 — Property damage at 26 Korokio Lane, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4622129 — Property damage at 26 Korokio Lane, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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