What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4639091 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties. The

How much money was awarded in case 4639091?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639091?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9782666-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4639091 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties. The

How much money was awarded in case 4639091?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $161.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4639091?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4639091?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9782666-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4639091 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639091 — net $461.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$161.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Repairs to door handles	$280.00	Repairs to door handles
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$461.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$461.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties. The landlord agrees that the tenants’ names are to also be suppressed. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $461.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The tenant has agreed to do the following: a. Remove the spa pool and any other rubbish remaining on the driveway of the premises. b. Arrange for the carpet to be professionally cleaned.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [The landlord/s representatives]. [The tenant/s] appeared for the tenants and was supported by her aunt.
This tenancy began on 6 December 2022. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord has issued a 14 day notice to the tenants on 24 May 2023 concerning breaches of the tenants’ responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). The landlord also seeks compensation for tenant damage and exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant has been unlawfully subletting the premises without the landlord’s consent.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) of the RTA.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
In this case, the landlord’s 14 day notice of 24 May 2023 listed a number of alleged breaches, including rubbish in the premises, marks on carpet, damage to glass and various items needing to be repaired or replaced, and the keeping of a pet. The landlord states that after 14 days, following re-inspection, it was found that the breaches were not remedied. The landlord gave additional time to the tenant to remedy the breaches. Inspections occurred on 9 June, 21 June, 15 July and 25 July 2023.
The current situation is that much of the alleged breaches have since been resolved. The landlord stated that the rubbish had been removed, although a few items still remained. The tenant has agreed to remove these items, including the spa pool. The premises has now been cleaned, although the carpet was still stained. The tenant has agreed to professionally clean the carpet.
In terms of the items requiring repair, the landlord has noted that the glass has been repaired, and compensation was sought from the tenant for the cost of glass repairs. The lock to the bedroom door had been fixed, and the lights in the self- contained flat and the walk-in-wardrobe had been reinstated. The bathroom extractor fan cover had also been reinstated. However, the switch outlet cover in the garage, which was still missing and needed to be reinstated, and the blinds in the self-contained unit needed to be reinstated. In terms of the pet, the landlord states they did not see the cat at the premises.
In reply, the tenant has explained her situation. She states that she has removed the rubbish, as noted by the landlord following its inspection on 6 September 2023. The curtains were replaced in the self-contained flat. Photographic evidence has been produced.
Overall, the landlord has established there were breaches under the RTA, which were not remedied by the tenant within the required period. The next issue is whether the tenant’s breaches are serious enough to terminate the tenancy. The ending of a tenancy has significant implications for the tenant and is a measure that is not taken lightly. There are many factors to be considered in determining whether a breach is serious enough to terminate, as noted by the District Court decision in Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation. 1 These factors include whether the breach is accidental or intentional, any immoral or illegal use, whether a breach is made good by the tenant, the landlord’s conduct, the tenant’s personal qualifications and financial position, the position of third parties, the gravity of the breach, lasting damage and proportionality.
As explained to the parties, and applying the relevant factors in this case, in view of the nature of the breaches, the challenging and difficult situation that the tenant found herself in, I am unable to conclude that termination of the tenancy is warranted in this case. Therefore, the landlord’s application for termination is dismissed. Compensation for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
In this case, the tenant has accepted responsibility for the damage to the electrical fittings, and agrees to pay the invoice from the electrician, [electrical company], for $161.00. This amount is awarded above, and, if not already paid, is to be paid immediately by the tenant.
The tenant also accepts responsibility for damage to the door handles. While the tenant attended to her own replacement of the door handles, it is reasonable for the landlord to arrange for this to be professionally replaced and seek compensation of $280.00 in accordance with the invoice. This amount is awarded above, and, if not already paid, is to be paid immediately by the tenant. 1 DC Porirua CIV-2010-091-110, 28 June 2010
The landlord advises that the tenant has already paid for the glass repair invoice from [glass company].
The tenant accepts responsibility for the garage switch damage. The landlord and tenant agree that the landlord will arrange for the garage switch to be repaired and will invoice the tenant. Subletting of the premises
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) of the RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
At the hearing, the landlord explained that another person was living at the premises, with the tenant’s permission, but without the landlord’s consent. The landlord was concerned that this person was damaging the premises, and being aggressive towards tradespeople who attended to do work (such as the glazier). In terms of concerns regarding access to the premises, the landlord accepts that they had access for inspections and re-inspections. However, the tradespeople had been denied access.
The tenant denies subletting the premises. She has explained that the other person was her former boyfriend, who has since been trespassed from the premises, due to his threatening behaviour. He has now moved out. She had approached the police for help and had submitted an application for a protection order. The police attended in October 2023. The tenant’s aunt had come to stay with her in support. She had apologised to the landlord and had tried to make amends.
In this case, clause 8 of the tenancy agreement states that, in accordance with section 44 of the RTA “the tenant may not sublet the premises (all or any part).” It further states that clause 8 includes subletting the entire or any part of the premises on short-term letting platforms. Therefore, there is a specific provision in this tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting. However, in order to do so, the tenant must take certain steps to part with possession. In this case, the evidence does not establish that the tenant had parted with possession of the premises, since the tenant has remained in possession throughout. Therefore, this is not a situation where the tenant has sublet the premises to another person without the landlord’s permission. Possession is not lost by sharing occupation and use of the premises with another person. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant sublet the premises is dismissed.
In terms of the difficulties accessing the premises, this is not a situation where the landlord has been denied entry by the tenant, since the landlord confirms having access to the premises for inspections. However, for tradespeople, the landlord’s evidence shows the challenges faced by the glazier, due to the aggressive behaviour of the person staying at the premises with the tenant’s permission (at that time). The tenant has since taken measures to remove this person from the premises and has withdrawn her permission for him to reside there. The invoice from [glass company] shows that the work was eventually undertaken. Therefore, this situation appears to have been resolved. Filing fee
As the landlord has been reasonably successful with its claims, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4639091 — net $461.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$161.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Repairs to door handles	$280.00	Repairs to door handles
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$461.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$461.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case by both parties. The landlord agrees that the tenants’ names are to also be suppressed. The Tribunal, having had regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, orders suppression of the Tenant/Landlord name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $461.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The tenant has agreed to do the following: a. Remove the spa pool and any other rubbish remaining on the driveway of the premises. b. Arrange for the carpet to be professionally cleaned.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The landlord was represented by [The landlord/s representatives]. [The tenant/s] appeared for the tenants and was supported by her aunt.
This tenancy began on 6 December 2022. The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations. The landlord has issued a 14 day notice to the tenants on 24 May 2023 concerning breaches of the tenants’ responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). The landlord also seeks compensation for tenant damage and exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant has been unlawfully subletting the premises without the landlord’s consent.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) of the RTA.
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
In this case, the landlord’s 14 day notice of 24 May 2023 listed a number of alleged breaches, including rubbish in the premises, marks on carpet, damage to glass and various items needing to be repaired or replaced, and the keeping of a pet. The landlord states that after 14 days, following re-inspection, it was found that the breaches were not remedied. The landlord gave additional time to the tenant to remedy the breaches. Inspections occurred on 9 June, 21 June, 15 July and 25 July 2023.
The current situation is that much of the alleged breaches have since been resolved. The landlord stated that the rubbish had been removed, although a few items still remained. The tenant has agreed to remove these items, including the spa pool. The premises has now been cleaned, although the carpet was still stained. The tenant has agreed to professionally clean the carpet.
In terms of the items requiring repair, the landlord has noted that the glass has been repaired, and compensation was sought from the tenant for the cost of glass repairs. The lock to the bedroom door had been fixed, and the lights in the self- contained flat and the walk-in-wardrobe had been reinstated. The bathroom extractor fan cover had also been reinstated. However, the switch outlet cover in the garage, which was still missing and needed to be reinstated, and the blinds in the self-contained unit needed to be reinstated. In terms of the pet, the landlord states they did not see the cat at the premises.
In reply, the tenant has explained her situation. She states that she has removed the rubbish, as noted by the landlord following its inspection on 6 September 2023. The curtains were replaced in the self-contained flat. Photographic evidence has been produced.
Overall, the landlord has established there were breaches under the RTA, which were not remedied by the tenant within the required period. The next issue is whether the tenant’s breaches are serious enough to terminate the tenancy. The ending of a tenancy has significant implications for the tenant and is a measure that is not taken lightly. There are many factors to be considered in determining whether a breach is serious enough to terminate, as noted by the District Court decision in Terangi v Housing New Zealand Corporation. 1 These factors include whether the breach is accidental or intentional, any immoral or illegal use, whether a breach is made good by the tenant, the landlord’s conduct, the tenant’s personal qualifications and financial position, the position of third parties, the gravity of the breach, lasting damage and proportionality.
As explained to the parties, and applying the relevant factors in this case, in view of the nature of the breaches, the challenging and difficult situation that the tenant found herself in, I am unable to conclude that termination of the tenancy is warranted in this case. Therefore, the landlord’s application for termination is dismissed. Compensation for damage
The landlord claims compensation for damage. To be successful, 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 of the RTA.
In this case, the tenant has accepted responsibility for the damage to the electrical fittings, and agrees to pay the invoice from the electrician, [electrical company], for $161.00. This amount is awarded above, and, if not already paid, is to be paid immediately by the tenant.
The tenant also accepts responsibility for damage to the door handles. While the tenant attended to her own replacement of the door handles, it is reasonable for the landlord to arrange for this to be professionally replaced and seek compensation of $280.00 in accordance with the invoice. This amount is awarded above, and, if not already paid, is to be paid immediately by the tenant. 1 DC Porirua CIV-2010-091-110, 28 June 2010
The landlord advises that the tenant has already paid for the glass repair invoice from [glass company].
The tenant accepts responsibility for the garage switch damage. The landlord and tenant agree that the landlord will arrange for the garage switch to be repaired and will invoice the tenant. Subletting of the premises
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) of the RTA. Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
At the hearing, the landlord explained that another person was living at the premises, with the tenant’s permission, but without the landlord’s consent. The landlord was concerned that this person was damaging the premises, and being aggressive towards tradespeople who attended to do work (such as the glazier). In terms of concerns regarding access to the premises, the landlord accepts that they had access for inspections and re-inspections. However, the tradespeople had been denied access.
The tenant denies subletting the premises. She has explained that the other person was her former boyfriend, who has since been trespassed from the premises, due to his threatening behaviour. He has now moved out. She had approached the police for help and had submitted an application for a protection order. The police attended in October 2023. The tenant’s aunt had come to stay with her in support. She had apologised to the landlord and had tried to make amends.
In this case, clause 8 of the tenancy agreement states that, in accordance with section 44 of the RTA “the tenant may not sublet the premises (all or any part).” It further states that clause 8 includes subletting the entire or any part of the premises on short-term letting platforms. Therefore, there is a specific provision in this tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting. However, in order to do so, the tenant must take certain steps to part with possession. In this case, the evidence does not establish that the tenant had parted with possession of the premises, since the tenant has remained in possession throughout. Therefore, this is not a situation where the tenant has sublet the premises to another person without the landlord’s permission. Possession is not lost by sharing occupation and use of the premises with another person. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages on the basis that the tenant sublet the premises is dismissed.
In terms of the difficulties accessing the premises, this is not a situation where the landlord has been denied entry by the tenant, since the landlord confirms having access to the premises for inspections. However, for tradespeople, the landlord’s evidence shows the challenges faced by the glazier, due to the aggressive behaviour of the person staying at the premises with the tenant’s permission (at that time). The tenant has since taken measures to remove this person from the premises and has withdrawn her permission for him to reside there. The invoice from [glass company] shows that the work was eventually undertaken. Therefore, this situation appears to have been resolved. Filing fee
As the landlord has been reasonably successful with its claims, the tenant is to pay the landlord’s filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639091 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4639091 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions