What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4797534 about?

The tribunal order states: Brad Nicholas Henderson must pay [The landlord/s] $3,873.69 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4797534?

Rent Arrears: $3,793.34 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $80.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797534?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797534?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10381834-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4797534 about?

The tribunal order states: Brad Nicholas Henderson must pay [The landlord/s] $3,873.69 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4797534?

Rent Arrears: $3,793.34 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $80.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4797534?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4797534?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10381834-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

35 Ascension Crescent, Orewa, Orewa 0931 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4797534 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4797534 — net $3,873.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 23.1.24	$3,793.34	Rent arrears as at 23.1.24
Water rates	$80.35	Water rates
Net award	$3,873.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,873.69

Order

Brad Nicholas Henderson must pay [The landlord/s] $3,873.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation 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 23 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices 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 amounts ordered for rent and water arrears are proven.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”.
The landlord says that the whole house was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has not provided any evidence in support of their claim for cleaning. At the very least I would have expected a landlord to have provided entry and exit photographs confirming the state of the premises at the start and end of the tenancy. The landlord has not done this. There is no evidence before me which supports this claim. The only ‘evidence’ provided by the landlord relating to this claim is a repair estimate from Kim’s Builders dated 31 January 2024 with a cleaning note for $150.00. This is completely inadequate.
Accordingly, the claim for cleaning must be dismissed.

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 landlord claims that the tenant damaged the property. They have not provided any photographic evidence of the damage and have only provided a quote for the damage repairs from Kim’s Builders dated 31 January 2024. No entry inspection or exit photos were provided with the application.
The landlord is also claiming compensation for a missing garage door remote. The landlord says that one of the garage door remotes was not returned and says that for safety reasons this had to be replaced. No evidence has been provided in support of this claim.
The landlord says the shower door handle was missing at the end of the tenancy. No evidence has been provided in support of this claim.
The landlord says that the bathroom hand basin on the first floor was broken (cracked) and had to be replaced. No photographic evidence has been provided in support of this claim.
The landlord also claims for water damage in respect of the second-floor hand basin. They say that the water damage occurred as a result of water overflow. No photographic evidence whatsoever has been provided in support of this claim.
As with other claims there is an expectation that a landlord will provide, as a minimum, photographic evidence in support of their claims for damage compensation. On this occasion they have not done so which leaves the Tribunal with very little to rely on. The applicant carries the onus to prove their case on the balance of probabilities.
No insurance has been claimed for this damage.
The landlord’s claims in respect of damage compensation must therefore be dismissed.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that they are not seeking reimbursement of the filing fee.
The bond has already been released in full to the landlord.
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 partly successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4797534 — net $3,873.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at 23.1.24	$3,793.34	Rent arrears as at 23.1.24
Water rates	$80.35	Water rates
Net award	$3,873.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,873.69

Order

Brad Nicholas Henderson must pay [The landlord/s] $3,873.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent and water arrears, compensation 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 23 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices 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 amounts ordered for rent and water arrears are proven.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The standard of proof that applies is the civil standard “on the balance of probabilities”. This means that I do not have to be completely certain, but I must be satisfied that what is alleged is “more probable than not”.
The landlord says that the whole house was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord has not provided any evidence in support of their claim for cleaning. At the very least I would have expected a landlord to have provided entry and exit photographs confirming the state of the premises at the start and end of the tenancy. The landlord has not done this. There is no evidence before me which supports this claim. The only ‘evidence’ provided by the landlord relating to this claim is a repair estimate from Kim’s Builders dated 31 January 2024 with a cleaning note for $150.00. This is completely inadequate.
Accordingly, the claim for cleaning must be dismissed.

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 landlord claims that the tenant damaged the property. They have not provided any photographic evidence of the damage and have only provided a quote for the damage repairs from Kim’s Builders dated 31 January 2024. No entry inspection or exit photos were provided with the application.
The landlord is also claiming compensation for a missing garage door remote. The landlord says that one of the garage door remotes was not returned and says that for safety reasons this had to be replaced. No evidence has been provided in support of this claim.
The landlord says the shower door handle was missing at the end of the tenancy. No evidence has been provided in support of this claim.
The landlord says that the bathroom hand basin on the first floor was broken (cracked) and had to be replaced. No photographic evidence has been provided in support of this claim.
The landlord also claims for water damage in respect of the second-floor hand basin. They say that the water damage occurred as a result of water overflow. No photographic evidence whatsoever has been provided in support of this claim.
As with other claims there is an expectation that a landlord will provide, as a minimum, photographic evidence in support of their claims for damage compensation. On this occasion they have not done so which leaves the Tribunal with very little to rely on. The applicant carries the onus to prove their case on the balance of probabilities.
No insurance has been claimed for this damage.
The landlord’s claims in respect of damage compensation must therefore be dismissed.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that they are not seeking reimbursement of the filing fee.
The bond has already been released in full to the landlord.
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 partly successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797534 — Rent arrears at 35 Ascension Crescent, Orewa, Orewa 0931

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4797534 — Rent arrears at 35 Ascension Crescent, Orewa, Orewa 0931

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions