What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4627295 about?

This case concerned a property damage dispute. The net award was $1,964.00.

How much money was awarded in case 4627295?

Painting Doors And Walls: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $564.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Vanity And Floor Excess: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627295?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627295?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9716687-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4627295 about?

This case concerned a property damage dispute. The net award was $1,964.00.

How much money was awarded in case 4627295?

Painting Doors And Walls: $750.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $564.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Vanity And Floor Excess: $650.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4627295?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4627295?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9716687-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4627295 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4627295 — net $1,964.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Bathroom vanity and floor excess	$650.00	Repairs: Bathroom vanity and floor excess
Doors and handle repairs	$564.00	Doors and handle repairs
Painting doors and walls	$750.00	Painting doors and walls
Net award	$1,964.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,964.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4627295 — net $1,964.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Bathroom vanity and floor excess	$650.00	Repairs: Bathroom vanity and floor excess
Doors and handle repairs	$564.00	Doors and handle repairs
Painting doors and walls	$750.00	Painting doors and walls
Net award	$1,964.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,964.00

Reasons

All the parties attended the hearing.
The tenant represented himself. [The landlord’s representative] appeared as Counsel for the landlord, [The landlord/s], with [The property manager/s] attending as [The landlord/s] office manager.
The Owners, [The owner/s] were represented by Counsel, [The owner’s representative].
Where I have not referred to any particular point or submission in this decision, that should not be taken that I have not considered it.
The tenant filed an application for. a) A refund of his bond top up, b) Exemplary damages for failing to lodge the bond top up with the bond centre, c) A declaration that the termination of the tenancy due to the owners claim for extensive renovations was not valid d) Exemplary damages for breach of section 45(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA, with respect to buildings health and safety, and e) A full refund of the rent paid for the tenancy because the premises were unlawful premises.
The landlord has applied for. a) Compensation for damages due to a leak in one of the bathrooms b) Compensation for damaging doors and walls and c) Exemplary damages for exceeding the number of residents at the premises.
Both parties sought names suppression and reimbursement of the filing fee if their claims were successful.
The tenancy began 15 September 2021 and ended 22 of March 2023 after the tenant was issued a 90-day notice by the landlord.
The premises are one building separated into 3 units. The tenant lives in the single top unit. There are 2 self-contained units below. The tenants claim Did the tenant pay $60 to top up his bond?
The tenant stated that he signed a second tenancy agreement with [The landlord/s], and started paying an increased rent of $640, he was previously paying $625. The tenant said this increase in rent was covered by WINZ as well as the corresponding increase in bond of $60.00.
When the tenancy ended the tenant was refunded the bond in full, being $2500, but the $60 top up that the tenant believed that WINZ had paid was missing from the refunded bond.
The tenant was unable to provide written confirmation that had received this $60 extra from WINZ, and had forwarded it to the landlord to be deposited. There was no written confirmation or bank records showing that WINZ had paid the extra bond amount to anyone.
The property manager at [The landlord/s] said they had no record of receiving this amount.
Counsel provided copies of emails where, in order to resolve the issue, [The landlord/s] had offered to pay the sum of $60 to the tenant who refused. The tenant explained that it had taken him a month to get his bond back in full and he did not want to jump through any further hoops with WINZ to establish the extra $60 was paid to the property manager.
The tenant was reminded that it is his obligation to provide evidence establishing his claim when coming to the Tenancy Tribunal.
Due to insufficient evidence establishing that this the payment of $60 occurred, this claim is dismissed.
Correspondingly the claim that the landlord failed to lodge the top up to the bond is also dismissed. Was the termination of the tenancy valid
The tenant was given a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy due to the landlord undertaking extensive renovations at the premises this notice was issued pursuant to section 51(1)(f) of the RTA.
A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if extensive alterations refurbishment repairs or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain an occupation while the work is undertaken, and the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are taken, within 90 days after the termination date. Section 51(2)(f), RTA confirms A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if— (f) extensive alterations, refurbishment, repairs, or redevelopment of the premises are to be carried out by the landlord or owner, and— (i) it would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation while the work is undertaken; and (ii) the work is to begin, or material steps towards it are to be taken, within 90 days after the termination date;
The tenant was frustrated that he was not provided with information on the renovations, the plans and all material steps that have been taken.
The tenant claimed that since he had left the premises a tree had been removed and the outside had been painted, but that there was no evidence of extensive alterations being commenced.
The tenant believed that the alterations would be occurring in the lower units and, as he lived in the top property, he could have remained at the premises while any of this work was undertaken
The tenant said that another party had been given the option to keep renting the premises during the alterations and that he should have been given this opportunity. The tenant was unable to produce evidence from the other party who he said would support this claim.
The landlords disagreed with the tenants’ statements saying that on the 1st of May 2023 the owners provided [The landlord/s] with a scope of work document, and this was emailed to the tenant. A project timeline was provided by the owners in support of this with plans attached showing their intention to convert the premises into two units.
Further evidence was provided that the water and power was isolated on 22 March 2023 and 16 October 2023. On the 28th of April there was a letter from the architect as proof of a material step being taken to towards the renovations. The architect also mentioned that during this process the premises would not be fit for habitation
The owners provided photographs of the renovations and progress which demonstrated the premises were under construction with walls removed and expose services.
The tenant also alleged that on ‘Trade Me’ there was an advertisement that the premises could be leased again. He said he had been looking for places to rent and the address came up again. The owners said that this was not possible as the premises were under construction.
The tenant was given the opportunity to provide a copy of this advertisement to the Tribunal during the hearing, and up to 5:00 PM on Friday 27 October, no e- mail was received.
I find that the tenant has failed to establish that the owners had not taken material steps toward extensive alterations and redevelopment within the time frame required by the RTA.
The notice issued terminating the tenancy is valid and this claim is dismissed.

Were the premises unlawful?

The tenant seeks a refund of all the rent paid for the entire tenancy because he claimed that the premises were unlawful premises for the whole of his occupation.
The tenant claims that the premises were unlawful premises because a) There was no consent for the change the use of the premises to become 3 separate self-contained units b) The Owners failed to comply with a notice to fix by the [City] Council, and c) There were no horizontal or vertical firewalls at the premises
The tenant said that he first became aware that the premises were unlawful when someone from the [council] came to the premises and told him that they were. He then went to the council seeking clarification and actioned a local Government official Information and Meetings Act 1987 search, LGOIMA, to obtain building documentation relating to the address.
The tenant found that the original building consent was for one dwelling only. The section was originally addressed as [address 1], then subdivided into two different blocks and a building built on the back section which became the [address 1] property.
The current premises were readdressed as [address 2] and were then at some point divided into three separate self-contained units being 9a 9b and 9c. There was no record that a code of compliance was issued by the [council] for this change of use or any consents for this property since 1973.
The landlord said that the [council] could not guarantee that documents older than 1973 were on file.
The landlord provided a copy of an email dated 15 May 2023 from [redacted] at the [council] saying that “at no time did the [council] compliance officer mention or say that the tenants were illegal and living in an unlawful dwelling”.
It was clarified in the hearing that this comment was from a power company representative in reference to the single power box servicing the 3 units.
The landlords purchased the premises in February 2021 as a multi dwelling residence with tenancies in place. As part of the purchase investigations were undertaken which included. a) a LIM report, b) a builder’s report -which identified only minor repairs required and c) A vendor warranty and undertaking that that the vendors obtained a building consent for any works on the property.
The landlords also were informed that. a) each unit was separately rated, b) each had their own mailbox, c) each had their own rubbish bins allocated by the [council] to each dwelling and d) the premises were professionally managed by [real estate company] at the time of purchase.
The landlord provided a copy of a search of the [council] website which shows that [address 2] is recognised as 3 units by the [council] with 3 different street addresses. The owners therefore believed on the information they received that the premises were consented to be rented out as three separate dwellings.
A building compliance officer from [council] inspected the premises which resulted in a notice to fix being issued, dated 15 February 2022.The tenant said that the notice to fix was further evidence that the premises were unlawful.
A notice to fix is issued under section164(1) of the Building Act 2004 is an enforcement notice that requires the person to remedy the breach or comply with the Building Act and Building Code. It provides for penalties for those that do not comply.
The particulars of the non-compliance notice to fix issued to the Owners under section 164 and 165 of the Building Act 204 were that, ‘..a Building Compliance Officer visited the premises on 10 February 2023 and discovered that the dwelling had been divided into 3 self-contained units.....the additional plumbing fixtures required a building consent to be issued by the [council] prior to its installation. Furthermore, you were required to update the [council] of the change of use of the building and the walls between units need to be firewalls.
To remedy the noncompliance the owners were to 1) Remove all the additional plumbing and fixtures and return the permitted state as per permit [redacted] or 2) To apply for a Certificate of Acceptance from [council] that covers all plumbing and building work associated with the plumbing and firewall confirmation or 3) If any building work was required, a building consent would have to be granted by the [council] prior to work being carried out.
The tenant was very concerned that there was not approved firewalls between his living space and the units below stating there was no vertical or horizontal firewalls at the property. He was concerned that he was not informed when the notice to fix was sent to the landlord. He felt he should be told this information because it put his family at risk.
The tenant said that he was told some months after the landlord was alerted to this and believed there was a lack of communication with him by [The landlord/s] given that the property managers had not informed him. This was a failure in their due diligence by renting a property that was not compliant with the fire regulations.
The tenant quoted Building Code Clause C which he said was breached because there were no firewalls at the premises. The tenant questioned whether there was anything that complied with fire regulations on the ceiling of the downstairs unit which formed the ground floor of his unit.
Schedule 1 of the Building Code, 1992, clause C relates to Protection from Fire and Clause C3.3 functional requirements states that, “buildings must be designed and constructed so that there is a low probability of fire spread to other property vertically or horizontally across a relevant boundary.”
The landlord provided photos of the renovations of and the downstairs unit which revealed that there was a fire-retardant product used in the interior walls. The exterior walls also had fibrous cement.
An email from [redacted] of [compliance and consulting company] dated 26 October 2023, stated that he believed that at the time of construction, there was evidence of a fire system, and ‘likely achieved with the construction method noted on the plans.’
The landlords stated that they had contested the notice fix. They had attended to the plumbing requirements which related to the two downstairs units and not the premises occupied by the tenant.
The landlords disputed the rest of the notice with [council] questioning the validity of it and the ability of the [council] to make this notice.
Building information contained in the LIM report stated that if work had been completed without a building consent prior to 1 July 1992 there is no process available through council for acceptance or qualification of this work, i.e., a certificate of acceptance.
The Tribunal was provided with determinations by the Ministry of Business and Employment which considered the question of whether a notice to fix can be issued to a subsequent owner.
It was found in determination [redacted], that the current owners had not contravened the Building Act, as they did not carry out the building work that contravened that Act. It was summarised that a notice to fix therefore cannot be issued against a subsequent owner.
A later determination [redacted] also found that a notice to fix could not be issued to a person who did not carry out the building work.
Counsel provided the decision by the High Court in Waikato Regional Council v The District Court & Poseidon Holdings Limited [2023] NZHC 1271 where the High Court concluded at paragraph [40] that the Act (Building Act 2004) does not impose an obligation on a person who becomes the owner of a non-compliant building work to ensure that the building work is bought up to standard so that it complies with the Building Code.
The landlords were issued notices for noncompliance on 7 July 2022, 24 November 2022 and 17 May 2023. An infringement notice was issued on 18 May 2023 for breach of section 40 of the Building Act, failing to ensure that all building work was carried out in accordance with a building consent.
The landlords were in the process of making substantial alterations to the premise at the time the notices to fix were issued. The Owners continued to challenge the validity of the notice to fix, however after the tenancy ended they changed the use of the building to a single dwelling which resulted in them being able to comply with the councils’ requirements.
The tenant said that this action did not matter because during his tenancy he and his family were not safe.
The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) RTA. Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA.
Section 78A(2) of the RTA states; “for the purposes of this act, unlawful residential premises means residential premises that are used for the occupation of a person as a place for residence but – (a)That cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes by the person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation); and (b) where the landlords failed to comply with the landlords obligation under section of 36 or 45(1)(c), has caused the occupation by that person to be unlawful or has contributed to their unlawful occupation.
The Tribunal under section 78(4)(a)(i) can make an order that the landlord pays the tenant a refund of the whole sum of rent if it is satisfied that the premises are or were unlawful residential premises.
Section45(1)(c) RTA provides that a landlord shall comply with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises.
Section 36 of the RTA states that the landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes.
The public policy behind the introduction of s 78A was to discourage landlords from renting out properties that were, for example, unconsented or unlawful and had therefore never been required to meet legal requirements to ensure their safe and healthy occupation by tenants
The Tribunal is obliged to take a strict approach in such situations, because of the serious risk involved. If there was a fire in unlawful premises, as the tenant feared, the consequences not just for the tenant but for the landlord and would be potentially life threatening.
For the tenant to succeed in this claim the Tribunal must find that the property cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes. This first step involves making a finding that the whole property has some sort of regulatory failure which means it cannot be occupied as a residential dwelling.
This question has been considered by the Tribunal in a decision in 2022, application [redacted] (the details of the parties and the address were suppressed).
The Adjudicator in this decision found that for the purposes of s78A of the RTA the decisions of the Tribunal in determining what was held to be unlawful fell into 3 broad categories. a) Unconsented, no building or resource consents issued for the premises at all b) When an abatement notices or dangerous and insanitary building notice was issued or c) Cases where garages, basement conversions or parts of premises being used as a larger household unit have been converted as a separate household unit without Council consent to the change of use. Change of use
A Building consent is required for a “change of use” of an existing building. For instance, a cabin may be a sleep-out (for which there is a building consent), but if washing and cooking facilities are added, there is a change of use of the sleep- out.
The Building Act 2004 provides a process relating to change of use. S 114 provides: Owners must give notice of change of use, extension of life, or subdivision of buildings. An owner of a building must give written notice to the territorial authority if the owner proposes to change a use of a building. See section 114(2)(a) Building Act 2004.
The Building Act also requires in section 115 written notice from the territorial authority that it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the building in its new use will comply as nearly as reasonably practicable, with the Building Code in all respects.
The parties agreed that the separation of the property into units occurred before the owners purchased the premises and they were at that time already being rented and professionally managed as three separate self-contained units.
At best an estimation can be made when the separation occurred, but it was before 2004 and before the Building Act 2004 was enacted. The changes to the use of the premises would not have been subject to its requirements.
The burden of proof falls on the tenant to establish these claims and the standard required by the Tenancy Tribunal is on the balance of probabilities. As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain in deciding this claim, I must consider all the evidence including oral evidence and weight this against what is more likely.
The main issues raised by the tenant in his claim that the premises were unlawful were that; a) there was no code of compliance issued for the change of use of the premises and, b) there was a breach of schedule 1 of the Building Code clause c, Protection from Fire, as highlighted in the landlords notice to fix issued by the [council].
The landlord raised that the premises were being treated by the council as 3 separate units and the standard due diligence checks at the time of purchase failed to reveal otherwise. [Council] could not guarantee that documents older than 1973 were on file.
I find that the owners conducted due diligence when purchasing the premise taking all legal steps to ensure that there were no legal impediments to the occupation for residential purposes.
The issues were discovered after a building compliance officer visited the premises. I do not find that the owners should have engaged a compliance officer prior to the start of the tenancy in order to ascertain if there was a legal impediment. It would be onerous if every tenancy required a check of this nature prior to commencement and I find that this is a step more than is required by section 36. I find that the owners took all reasonable steps to ensure that there was no legal impediment and there was no breach of section 36 RTA.
I find that there is not enough evidence provided establishing that the landlords knew that the council had not been notified of the change of use which occurred many years prior to their ownership. Due to the lack of records from the [council] there was not enough evidence provided to establish if any necessary approvals were issued or not. However, by their own actions the council was treating the premises as if consent had been granted.
The tenant raised that the notice to fix is evidence of a breach, and his family was in danger due to the owner’s noncompliance.
The owners in reply provided copies of determinations and decisions which question the council’s ability to issue a notice on this basis. I have not been asked or have the jurisdiction to determine the validity of the [Council] to issue this notice but have considered the evidence.
This takes us back to considering if it has been established that the premises cannot be lawfully occupied. When referring to the 3 broad categories that the Tribunal has previously considered.
I have found that there was not enough evidence provided to determine when the premises were divided into separate units and whether a code of compliance (or other approval) was issued and if the units were constructed in compliance with the law as it applied at the time.
There was no abatement or dangerous building notice issued, no contravention of the Building Act 2004 at the time it was built as it was many years prior to this Act and the 1991 Building Regulations.
The requirement for firewalls although resolved by the owner’s recent change of use of the premises, also fails as the requirements to obtain written notice from the territorial authority applies to changes of use that occur after the Building Act 2004 came into effect. There was no evidence provided that the change of use for this premises occurred after this date.
In considering the breach of landlord’s responsibilities 45(1)(c) RTA that a landlord complies with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment. The premises did not comply with the Building Regulations 1994, with respect to protection from fire at the time it was tenanted.
This section is referred to in section 78A when considering if the premises were unlawful. A breach of section 45(1)(c) RTA is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages can be awarded. This was sought by the tenant.
Before an award of exemplary damages can be made the Tribunal must be satisfied that the unlawful act was committed intentionally.
[The owner’s representative], Counsel for the owners, stated that even if the Tribunal found that there was a breach by their landlord of section 45 the claim would fail due to the lack of intention by the landlord in committing any unlawful act. The actions of the owners demonstrate that they did complete their due diligence and there was no intention to mislead or commit any unlawful act.
I find that there is no evidence of a clear intention to commit an unlawful act and this claim is dismissed.
I do not find that the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA and that it is more likely than not that the premises are unlawful.
The claim that the premises are unlawful is dismissed. The landlords claims

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: There was a leak in the bathroom vanity and flooring was damaged due to water leak, 3 doors were damaged by having the door handles removed, 2 walls had damage to the wallpaper and a hole was plastered over required sanding a repainting. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord sought compensation by reimbursement of the insurance excess for the damaged to the bathroom vanity and floor. The excess was $650.The pre- inspection noted that this area was clean working and undamaged at the start of the tenancy. Photographs at the end at the tenancy exit inspection showed water damage in mold inside the vanity unit and damage behind. There was also a floor being repaired due to water damage.
The tenant said he did not notice any damages until the end of the tenancy as this area was used by his children. Multiple inspections by their property managers also did not pick up any damage occurring to the vanity or the floor. The owners provided a picture of water collected that came from a leaky pipe in the vanity and believe this was the cause of the damage.
I do not find that this was intentional damage but damage that did occur during the tenancy and was careless. The insurance exists is awarded as claimed
The landlord claimed that there was intentional damage to three doors, to the wallpaper and damage to the wall that was plastered. The tenant agreed that he removed the locks on the doors because they could be locked on the inside and that the keys he was given didn’t work.
There is no evidence provided that the tenant had communicated that the locks did not work this to the landlord. He said that he removed the door lock as a child was locked in a room and he repaired one door lock himself for safety reasons.
The tenant also agreed that there was a plaster patch that needed to be sanded back but he was not given the opportunity to do this. All parties agreed that the end of the tenancy was extended by a day, but this matter wasn't remedied in that time. The damaged wallpaper in the areas of two bedrooms was not explained by the tenant.
These damages were not claimed under the landlord’s insurance as each incident attracted the $650 excess. The total of $1785.38 was claimed for these repairs. The landlord said that the premises had been painted throughout, three months before the start of this tenancy.
The landlord believed any depreciation take be taken to consideration would be over a period of six months.
The amounts ordered are proved.
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.

Did the tenant exceed the maximum number of persons living at the premises?

[The landlord/s] claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeds the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. See section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement specified that the maximum number of tenants was 4 named people, may live in the premises during the tenancy which was the tenant and his three children.
The landlords provided photographs of mail sent to that address with other people's names on it. The tenant said that this was misdirected mail from previous tenants and some from his children who used his address due to safety issues with their own mailbox.
The tenant provided 3 other envelopes wrongly addressed to his premises as evidence of mail he had received belonging to other people.
The landlord said there was multiple cars outside the premises. The tenant replied that he had at least three cars and a motorbike and that they all belonged to him.
The landlord claimed that when the [council] came to him speak to him at the premises an adult female was there. It was established that this was on the 22nd of March 2023 when the tenancy had ended and was probably one of the cleaners.
I find that the landlord has not established this claim and it is dismissed.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
Both parties requested suppression. I consider that the landlord has been substantially successful in proceedings and name suppression is granted.
The tenant has had limited success and accepted some damages, and in this instance, I decline the tenant’s application for name suppression. The filling fees are not reimbursed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627295 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4627295 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Were the premises unlawful?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant exceed the maximum number of persons living at the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Reasons

Were the premises unlawful?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant exceed the maximum number of persons living at the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions