What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4716529 about?

The tribunal order states: Alisa Van de Ven to pay [The landlord/s] $874.82 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4716529?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $242.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $95.22 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $315.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4716529?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4716529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10148342-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4716529 about?

The tribunal order states: Alisa Van de Ven to pay [The landlord/s] $874.82 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4716529?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $242.86 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $201.25 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $95.22 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $315.05 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4716529?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4716529?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10148342-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1405, 3 Northcroft Street, Takapuna, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4716529 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4716529 — net $874.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16.9.23	$242.86	Rent arrears to 16.9.23
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates (incl GST	$315.05	Water rates (incl GST
Repairs: Wall repair (incl GST	$201.25	Repairs: Wall repair (incl GST
Rubbish removal (incl GST	$95.22	Rubbish removal (incl GST
Net award	$874.82
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$874.82

Order

Alisa Van de Ven to pay [The landlord/s] $874.82 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $874.82 Alisa Van de Ven: $2,525.18

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, 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 ended on 16 September 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt.
The landlord provided evidence of outstanding water charges. The landlord’s calculation in respect of the outstanding amount is incorrect. I have allowed this claim but have reduced the amount based on the evidence filed with the application. The period I have used for a proper calculation of water usage is taken from the Centurion Management Services invoices dated 16 June 2023 to 16 September 2023. The tenant is only required to pay for water usage.
The landlord also claims that the tenant has not paid outstanding rubbish levies. The tenant accepts this claim.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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. Dining room table:
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a dining room table. Photographic evidence of the table was provided with the application, however no invoice for the repair cost was provided. The landlord has also not provided photographs taken at the start of the tenancy confirming the condition of the table prior to the tenant moving in. In the absence of this evidence,
I cannot be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant is responsible for this alleged damage.
The claim in respect of the dining table is dismissed. Wall damage:
The landlord claims that the tenant has damaged the walls by affixing adhesive hooks. Photographic evidence of the hooks on the wall was provided with the application.
The tenant feels she did not damage the wall. She says that the hooks were of the type which could be easily removed.
The landlord disagreed and said that there was no way to remove these without damaging the wall. He says that they had to be levered off.
The landlord also provided an invoice from Habitat Property Maintenance dated 10 October 2023 noting “repair to damaged entrance walls”.
The evidence provided in respect of actual damage is minimal. There is one photo which shows where a hook as been removed from the wall causing damage.
A tenant is entitled to make minor changes to a premises. This includes changes such as picture hooks. That being said a tenant is also responsible for returning the property to substantially the same condition it was in before the minor change was made. Because of the damage caused by removing the hooks I consider this to be more than fair wear and tear.
The amount claimed by the landlord is not supported by the evidence provided with the application. I allow the claim in respect of damage to walls but reduce the amount by 50% plus GST which reflects the minor damage shown in the evidential photograph.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is substantially successful – see section 95A RTA.
During the hearing the tenant also request name suppression.
In my view, the application by the tenant for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4716529 — net $874.82 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 16.9.23	$242.86	Rent arrears to 16.9.23
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Water rates (incl GST	$315.05	Water rates (incl GST
Repairs: Wall repair (incl GST	$201.25	Repairs: Wall repair (incl GST
Rubbish removal (incl GST	$95.22	Rubbish removal (incl GST
Net award	$874.82
Bond	$3,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$874.82

Order

Alisa Van de Ven to pay [The landlord/s] $874.82 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $874.82 Alisa Van de Ven: $2,525.18

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation, 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 ended on 16 September 2023. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for this debt.
The landlord provided evidence of outstanding water charges. The landlord’s calculation in respect of the outstanding amount is incorrect. I have allowed this claim but have reduced the amount based on the evidence filed with the application. The period I have used for a proper calculation of water usage is taken from the Centurion Management Services invoices dated 16 June 2023 to 16 September 2023. The tenant is only required to pay for water usage.
The landlord also claims that the tenant has not paid outstanding rubbish levies. The tenant accepts this claim.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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. Dining room table:
The landlord claims that the tenant damaged a dining room table. Photographic evidence of the table was provided with the application, however no invoice for the repair cost was provided. The landlord has also not provided photographs taken at the start of the tenancy confirming the condition of the table prior to the tenant moving in. In the absence of this evidence,
I cannot be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant is responsible for this alleged damage.
The claim in respect of the dining table is dismissed. Wall damage:
The landlord claims that the tenant has damaged the walls by affixing adhesive hooks. Photographic evidence of the hooks on the wall was provided with the application.
The tenant feels she did not damage the wall. She says that the hooks were of the type which could be easily removed.
The landlord disagreed and said that there was no way to remove these without damaging the wall. He says that they had to be levered off.
The landlord also provided an invoice from Habitat Property Maintenance dated 10 October 2023 noting “repair to damaged entrance walls”.
The evidence provided in respect of actual damage is minimal. There is one photo which shows where a hook as been removed from the wall causing damage.
A tenant is entitled to make minor changes to a premises. This includes changes such as picture hooks. That being said a tenant is also responsible for returning the property to substantially the same condition it was in before the minor change was made. Because of the damage caused by removing the hooks I consider this to be more than fair wear and tear.
The amount claimed by the landlord is not supported by the evidence provided with the application. I allow the claim in respect of damage to walls but reduce the amount by 50% plus GST which reflects the minor damage shown in the evidential photograph.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is substantially successful – see section 95A RTA.
During the hearing the tenant also request name suppression.
In my view, the application by the tenant for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4716529 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1405, 3 Northcroft Street, Takapuna, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4716529 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1405, 3 Northcroft Street, Takapuna, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions