What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4717889 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay 100 Percent Rentals Limited $1,850.64 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4717889?

Break Lease Costs: $759.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,071.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4717889?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4717889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9666809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4717889 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay 100 Percent Rentals Limited $1,850.64 from the bond,

How much money was awarded in case 4717889?

Break Lease Costs: $759.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,071.20 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4717889?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4717889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9666809-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

14 Bond Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4717889 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4717889 — net $1,850.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Vanity repairs	$1,071.20	Vanity repairs
Break lease costs	$759.00	Break lease costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,850.64
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,850.64

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay 100 Percent Rentals Limited $1,850.64 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Vanity repairs$1,071.20 Break lease costs$759.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$1,850.64 Bond-$1,850.64
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: 100 Percent Rentals Limited: $1,850.64 [The tenant/s]: $549.36

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Break Lease Fee
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy. The tenant sought to end the fixed term early. The tenant’s sought to end the fixed term early because they have purchased a house. This was always their intention, but they did not know how long the purchasing process would take.
The landlord accepted the early termination of the tenancy. New tenants were found for the property, and the new tenancy commenced the day after the end of this tenancy.
However, the landlord is seeking to recover the costs of re-advertising and re- tenanting the property. The tenant opposes this, and says they were not advised there would be a cost involved with breaking the fixed term early.
The landlord’s provided me with an email – sent to the tenant’s address for service – setting out the requirement to pay rent until new tenants were found, and the tenant’s liability for the actual and reasonably costs of re-tenanting the premises. While the tenant’s position is that this email was not received, as noted, it was sent to their address for service and the landlord is entitled to rely on it.
In addition to the email, the landlord states that the tenants were advised by telephone that they would have to pay a break lease fee. The email was simply written confirmation of that.
The tenants dispute that they were advised of a lease break fee at any point prior to the end of the tenancy, and that they did not agree to pay a lease break fee.
On balance, I find that the landlord did advise the tenants that a break lease fee would apply. I also accept that the tenants did not properly appreciate the situation.
I further note that the ending of a fixed term early often does cause loss to a landlord, and the tenant is generally liable for any loss caused by what is, essentially, a breach of contract by the tenant.
This is reflected in section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which allows the Tribunal to reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy when certain criteria are met. Such an order is generally accompanied by an order that compensation for reasonable costs incurred as a result of the reduction in term.
I am satisfied the amount sought is the actual and reasonable costs of re-tenanting the property early.
In the present case, had the tenants brought an application to reduce the fixed term for the reasons they did, I would have been unlikely to grant the application. When the tenants signed the fixed term tenancy, they knew they were seeking to purchase a property. The purchase of a property is not an unforeseen change in circumstances as required by the Act. Such an application was not required because the landlord accepted a reduction in the fixed term without requiring an order from the Tribunal. I do not consider that the landlord should be disadvantaged by taking a reasonable approach.
Accordingly, I consider the amount awarded is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Extensive staining to the bathroom vanity.
The tenants deny causing the damage to the vanity. It is their position that the staining was present prior to the start of the tenancy. The tenants’ position is that the landlord’s photos cannot be confirmed as taken on 21 December 2022 (immediately prior to the tenancy) as they are not dated, and it would be possible for the landlord to provide photos from an earlier date to seek compensation from them.
The landlord accepts that it would have been better if the photographs were dated. However, the landlord’s evidence is that the photographs were taken as part of the entry inspection for this premises. The entry inspection is dated 21 December 2022 and was conducted by the same property manager who attended the hearing. The landlord also provided an email from the previous tenants confirming that the damage was not present when they left the premises.
The photographs relied on by the landlord are part of a sequence of photographs which appear to correlate with the sort of pre-tenancy inspection routinely undertaken by landlords. The entire report was made available to me, and I have no reason to disbelieve the landlord’s evidence of the date the photographs were taken.
Further, the tenants did not note or complain about the condition of the vanity at the start of the tenancy, which I would have expected had this damage predated the tenancy.
The tenants are making a significant allegation of dishonesty on the part of the landlord. They have no evidence to support that allegation. My indication in the hearing that, absent evidence to the contrary, I was likely to accept the landlord’s evidence was an invitation to the tenants to provide me with any evidence they relied on in support of their position. It did not arise out of any bias, but a desire to provide a fair opportunity to be heard.
I am satisfied the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
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 particular, I have considered that fact that the landlord replaced the existing vanity with a slightly different vanity, with a cupboard. I accept the landlord’s evidence that this was the cheapest option available to them. The landlord’s evidence was that replacing the vanity with another the same would have cost $900 plus the installation costs. I am satisfied that this was an appropriate option for the landlord to take.
Because 100 Percent Rentals Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4717889 — net $1,850.64 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Vanity repairs	$1,071.20	Vanity repairs
Break lease costs	$759.00	Break lease costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,850.64
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,850.64

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay 100 Percent Rentals Limited $1,850.64 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Vanity repairs$1,071.20 Break lease costs$759.00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$1,850.64 Bond-$1,850.64
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: 100 Percent Rentals Limited: $1,850.64 [The tenant/s]: $549.36

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Break Lease Fee
The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy. The tenant sought to end the fixed term early. The tenant’s sought to end the fixed term early because they have purchased a house. This was always their intention, but they did not know how long the purchasing process would take.
The landlord accepted the early termination of the tenancy. New tenants were found for the property, and the new tenancy commenced the day after the end of this tenancy.
However, the landlord is seeking to recover the costs of re-advertising and re- tenanting the property. The tenant opposes this, and says they were not advised there would be a cost involved with breaking the fixed term early.
The landlord’s provided me with an email – sent to the tenant’s address for service – setting out the requirement to pay rent until new tenants were found, and the tenant’s liability for the actual and reasonably costs of re-tenanting the premises. While the tenant’s position is that this email was not received, as noted, it was sent to their address for service and the landlord is entitled to rely on it.
In addition to the email, the landlord states that the tenants were advised by telephone that they would have to pay a break lease fee. The email was simply written confirmation of that.
The tenants dispute that they were advised of a lease break fee at any point prior to the end of the tenancy, and that they did not agree to pay a lease break fee.
On balance, I find that the landlord did advise the tenants that a break lease fee would apply. I also accept that the tenants did not properly appreciate the situation.
I further note that the ending of a fixed term early often does cause loss to a landlord, and the tenant is generally liable for any loss caused by what is, essentially, a breach of contract by the tenant.
This is reflected in section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which allows the Tribunal to reduce the term of a fixed term tenancy when certain criteria are met. Such an order is generally accompanied by an order that compensation for reasonable costs incurred as a result of the reduction in term.
I am satisfied the amount sought is the actual and reasonable costs of re-tenanting the property early.
In the present case, had the tenants brought an application to reduce the fixed term for the reasons they did, I would have been unlikely to grant the application. When the tenants signed the fixed term tenancy, they knew they were seeking to purchase a property. The purchase of a property is not an unforeseen change in circumstances as required by the Act. Such an application was not required because the landlord accepted a reduction in the fixed term without requiring an order from the Tribunal. I do not consider that the landlord should be disadvantaged by taking a reasonable approach.
Accordingly, I consider the amount awarded is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
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.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
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.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Extensive staining to the bathroom vanity.
The tenants deny causing the damage to the vanity. It is their position that the staining was present prior to the start of the tenancy. The tenants’ position is that the landlord’s photos cannot be confirmed as taken on 21 December 2022 (immediately prior to the tenancy) as they are not dated, and it would be possible for the landlord to provide photos from an earlier date to seek compensation from them.
The landlord accepts that it would have been better if the photographs were dated. However, the landlord’s evidence is that the photographs were taken as part of the entry inspection for this premises. The entry inspection is dated 21 December 2022 and was conducted by the same property manager who attended the hearing. The landlord also provided an email from the previous tenants confirming that the damage was not present when they left the premises.
The photographs relied on by the landlord are part of a sequence of photographs which appear to correlate with the sort of pre-tenancy inspection routinely undertaken by landlords. The entire report was made available to me, and I have no reason to disbelieve the landlord’s evidence of the date the photographs were taken.
Further, the tenants did not note or complain about the condition of the vanity at the start of the tenancy, which I would have expected had this damage predated the tenancy.
The tenants are making a significant allegation of dishonesty on the part of the landlord. They have no evidence to support that allegation. My indication in the hearing that, absent evidence to the contrary, I was likely to accept the landlord’s evidence was an invitation to the tenants to provide me with any evidence they relied on in support of their position. It did not arise out of any bias, but a desire to provide a fair opportunity to be heard.
I am satisfied the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
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 particular, I have considered that fact that the landlord replaced the existing vanity with a slightly different vanity, with a cupboard. I accept the landlord’s evidence that this was the cheapest option available to them. The landlord’s evidence was that replacing the vanity with another the same would have cost $900 plus the installation costs. I am satisfied that this was an appropriate option for the landlord to take.
Because 100 Percent Rentals Limited has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order reimbursement of the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4717889 — Property damage at 14 Bond Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4717889 — Property damage at 14 Bond Street, Hokowhitu, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions