What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4640311 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4640311?

Break Fixed Term Cost: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Monies Subsequently Paid By Tenant: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $9,335.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4640311?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4640311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9522266-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4640311 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4640311?

Break Fixed Term Cost: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Monies Subsequently Paid By Tenant: $1,150.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $9,335.83 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4640311?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4640311?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9522266-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

25D Tuhikaramea Road, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4640311 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4640311 — net $9,081.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
monies subsequently paid by tenant	$1,150.00	monies subsequently paid by tenant
Repairs	$9,335.83	Repairs
Break fixed term cost	$575.00	Break fixed term cost
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,081.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,081.27

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to JS Property Management Limited as Agent for Praneel And Ravisha Dutt immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay JS Property Management Limited As Agent For Praneel And Ravisha Dutt $9,081.27 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

This was a fixed term joint tenancy commencing on 06 August 2022. The fixed term was set to expire on 05 August 2023. On 06 May 2023, one of the tenant’s advised the landlord that the property had been vacated. The landlord agreed to end the tenancy on that date. On 26 July 2023, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 25 August 2023, the claim was set down for an in-person hearing. Shortly before the commencement of the hearing, the Registrar received a request by both tenants to attend by telephone.
Mr Peters for the landlord appeared in person, a call was placed to both tenants who answered.
This was not a matter deemed suitable for telephone hearing. Initially, I was of the view that a Case Management Conference and then an adjournment might be required. However, Mr Peters explained that the tenant had accepted liability and had already made some payments. At the material time, the tenants were in a relationship which ended acrimoniously during the tenancy. There are matters before the District Court.
The tenant does not dispute the damage. However, each tenant has stated that some of the damage had been caused by the other tenant only and on that basis questioned why they should be liable for damages caused by the other. After discussing the relevant provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”), both tenants accepted that as joint tenants, they were jointly responsible and liable for the actions of the other.
After hearing from both parties, and carefully considering the matter, I have reached the conclusion that it was appropriate to procced with the hearing.

Rent arrears and break fixed term cost?

As stated, that tenant advised the landlord on 06 May 2023, that both had vacated the property. The landlord has determined the end date of the tenancy to be the date of that advice, 06 May 2023. This is not disputed by the tenant. The rent summary shows that the rent arrears to that date were $1,900.00. Although entitled to do so, the landlord does not claim any rent past this date. Mr Peters states that payments have been made by the tenant following the end of the tenancy that have been attributed to the rent arrears. The balance of rent arrears owing is $1,150.00.
The Act allows the landlord to recover reasonable costs associated with entering a new tenancy following the breaking of the agreement by the tenant. These provisions are also contained in the tenancy agreement. The costs associated with reletting the property where $575.00. The cost is not disputed by the tenant. I am satisfied that the cost is reasonable, and I award it in full.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to the property.
To succeed in a claim for damage the landlord must establish more likely than not 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 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. Tenants may be held liable for the full cost of repairing damage that has been caused intentionally.
The landlord has produced tenancy report which includes photographs showing the condition of the property at the commencement, during , and at the end of the tenancy. The property consists of two bedrooms, open plan kitchen / dining / living room, bathroom and toilet, and an internal garage with contains the laundry. The property had been newly renovated at the commencement of the tenancy. The end of tenancy report shows damage to each room apart from the kitchen and bathroom. The damage is in the form of holes in the walls and doors and includes some graffiti. Some of the damage appears to have been partly repaired, and then re damaged. Overall, the damage can be described as extensive. The claim also includes broken windows in the living room.
Having heard from the parties and considering the inspection reports and photographs, I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear.
As stated, there is no dispute about this. In this case, it is both tenants, as joint tenants, who must show that neither tenant carelessly nor intentionally caused the damage. Although there is a dispute as to how much damage they may have caused individually, there is no dispute that the damage has been caused by either one or the other.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. Carelessness has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence, or lack of foresight. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
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 nature of the damage in this case suggests that it was more likely than not intentional.
The landlord has produced a detailed scope of works which sets out the costs of repairing each area of damage. In this case, the landlord’s insurance agreed to cover the damage. On that basis, the landlord is claiming the insurance excesses only, which total $ 9,335.83. This amount also includes the full cost of repairing the damaged windows which were less than the excess.
Damages claimed, and awarded, must flow naturally from the breach, and be reasonable. In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and that the tenant, jointly, is liable. The amount claimed is reasonable and awarded in full. The property had been newly renovated at the commencement of the tenancy, and I make no deduction for depreciation or betterment.
The landlord application also contains a claim for exemplary damages for damage caused by the tenant. This is declined. There is no provision in the Act allowing the Tribunal to award exemplary damages against the tenant for damage they have caused or permitted to occur. See section 40(2) and (3A) of the Act. Costs
Because JS Property Management Limited As Agent For Praneel And Ravisha Dutt has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Although they have been wholly successful the landlord does not seek name suppression. [Tenant 1] seeks name suppression, [Tenant 2] is ambivalent.
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 damage in this case has occurred within a domestic relationship. There are outstanding matters before the District Court. I am satisfied that there are grounds relevant to the tenant’s personal circumstances that justify a departure from the general principle of open justice. I am also satisfied allowing publishing of [Tenant 2]’s details may reveal the identity of [Tenant 1]. Accordingly, I order suppression of both tenant’s names.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4640311 — net $9,081.27 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
monies subsequently paid by tenant	$1,150.00	monies subsequently paid by tenant
Repairs	$9,335.83	Repairs
Break fixed term cost	$575.00	Break fixed term cost
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,081.27
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,081.27

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to JS Property Management Limited as Agent for Praneel And Ravisha Dutt immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay JS Property Management Limited As Agent For Praneel And Ravisha Dutt $9,081.27 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

This was a fixed term joint tenancy commencing on 06 August 2022. The fixed term was set to expire on 05 August 2023. On 06 May 2023, one of the tenant’s advised the landlord that the property had been vacated. The landlord agreed to end the tenancy on that date. On 26 July 2023, the landlord filed a claim for rent arrears, damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 25 August 2023, the claim was set down for an in-person hearing. Shortly before the commencement of the hearing, the Registrar received a request by both tenants to attend by telephone.
Mr Peters for the landlord appeared in person, a call was placed to both tenants who answered.
This was not a matter deemed suitable for telephone hearing. Initially, I was of the view that a Case Management Conference and then an adjournment might be required. However, Mr Peters explained that the tenant had accepted liability and had already made some payments. At the material time, the tenants were in a relationship which ended acrimoniously during the tenancy. There are matters before the District Court.
The tenant does not dispute the damage. However, each tenant has stated that some of the damage had been caused by the other tenant only and on that basis questioned why they should be liable for damages caused by the other. After discussing the relevant provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”), both tenants accepted that as joint tenants, they were jointly responsible and liable for the actions of the other.
After hearing from both parties, and carefully considering the matter, I have reached the conclusion that it was appropriate to procced with the hearing.

Rent arrears and break fixed term cost?

As stated, that tenant advised the landlord on 06 May 2023, that both had vacated the property. The landlord has determined the end date of the tenancy to be the date of that advice, 06 May 2023. This is not disputed by the tenant. The rent summary shows that the rent arrears to that date were $1,900.00. Although entitled to do so, the landlord does not claim any rent past this date. Mr Peters states that payments have been made by the tenant following the end of the tenancy that have been attributed to the rent arrears. The balance of rent arrears owing is $1,150.00.
The Act allows the landlord to recover reasonable costs associated with entering a new tenancy following the breaking of the agreement by the tenant. These provisions are also contained in the tenancy agreement. The costs associated with reletting the property where $575.00. The cost is not disputed by the tenant. I am satisfied that the cost is reasonable, and I award it in full.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims that the tenant is liable for damage to the property.
To succeed in a claim for damage the landlord must establish more likely than not 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 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. Tenants may be held liable for the full cost of repairing damage that has been caused intentionally.
The landlord has produced tenancy report which includes photographs showing the condition of the property at the commencement, during , and at the end of the tenancy. The property consists of two bedrooms, open plan kitchen / dining / living room, bathroom and toilet, and an internal garage with contains the laundry. The property had been newly renovated at the commencement of the tenancy. The end of tenancy report shows damage to each room apart from the kitchen and bathroom. The damage is in the form of holes in the walls and doors and includes some graffiti. Some of the damage appears to have been partly repaired, and then re damaged. Overall, the damage can be described as extensive. The claim also includes broken windows in the living room.
Having heard from the parties and considering the inspection reports and photographs, I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy and that it is more than fair wear and tear.
As stated, there is no dispute about this. In this case, it is both tenants, as joint tenants, who must show that neither tenant carelessly nor intentionally caused the damage. Although there is a dispute as to how much damage they may have caused individually, there is no dispute that the damage has been caused by either one or the other.
In dealing with the issue of carelessness the question is whether the tenant was exercising a degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent tenant would exercise in the circumstances. Carelessness has its normal meaning of lack of care, negligence, or lack of foresight. The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of the tenant or landlord.
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 nature of the damage in this case suggests that it was more likely than not intentional.
The landlord has produced a detailed scope of works which sets out the costs of repairing each area of damage. In this case, the landlord’s insurance agreed to cover the damage. On that basis, the landlord is claiming the insurance excesses only, which total $ 9,335.83. This amount also includes the full cost of repairing the damaged windows which were less than the excess.
Damages claimed, and awarded, must flow naturally from the breach, and be reasonable. In awarding compensation for damage, the Tribunal must consider 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, the Tribunal must consider the age and condition of the items concerned at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
I am satisfied that the damage occurred during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear, and that the tenant, jointly, is liable. The amount claimed is reasonable and awarded in full. The property had been newly renovated at the commencement of the tenancy, and I make no deduction for depreciation or betterment.
The landlord application also contains a claim for exemplary damages for damage caused by the tenant. This is declined. There is no provision in the Act allowing the Tribunal to award exemplary damages against the tenant for damage they have caused or permitted to occur. See section 40(2) and (3A) of the Act. Costs
Because JS Property Management Limited As Agent For Praneel And Ravisha Dutt has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Although they have been wholly successful the landlord does not seek name suppression. [Tenant 1] seeks name suppression, [Tenant 2] is ambivalent.
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 damage in this case has occurred within a domestic relationship. There are outstanding matters before the District Court. I am satisfied that there are grounds relevant to the tenant’s personal circumstances that justify a departure from the general principle of open justice. I am also satisfied allowing publishing of [Tenant 2]’s details may reveal the identity of [Tenant 1]. Accordingly, I order suppression of both tenant’s names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4640311 — Property damage at 25D Tuhikaramea Road, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4640311 — Property damage at 25D Tuhikaramea Road, Dinsdale, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Rent arrears and break fixed term cost?

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

Rent arrears and break fixed term cost?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions