What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4799139 about?

The tribunal order states: Bond services is to pay, from the bond, as follows:

How much money was awarded in case 4799139?

Compensation: upstairs hallway paint…: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,080.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4799139?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4799139?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10624528-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4799139 about?

The tribunal order states: Bond services is to pay, from the bond, as follows:

How much money was awarded in case 4799139?

Compensation: upstairs hallway paint…: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,080.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4799139?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4799139?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10624528-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4799139 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4799139 — net $1,280.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: upstairs hallway painting	$200.00	upstairs hallway painting
Rent arrears to 19 December 2024	$1,080.00	Rent arrears to 19 December 2024
Net award	$1,280.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,280.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4799139 — net $1,280.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation: upstairs hallway painting	$200.00	upstairs hallway painting
Rent arrears to 19 December 2024	$1,080.00	Rent arrears to 19 December 2024
Net award	$1,280.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,280.00

Order

Bond services is to pay, from the bond, as follows: a. $1,280.00 to Reliance Property Management Limited b. $1,240.00 to [The tenant/s]
The award at [1] above is calculated as follows: DescriptionLandlord Compensation: upstairs hallway painting$200.00 Rent arrears to 19 December 2024$1,080.00 Total award$1,280.00 Deducted from Bond to pay Landlord$1,280.00 Balance of Bond Due Tenant$1,240.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Landlord attended by telephone.
This dispute relates to a 12-month, fixed-term tenancy from 6 October 2023 to 6 October 2024.
The Tenant vacated the property on or about 30 November 2023.
The Landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

When did the tenancy end, and how much rent is the Tenant liable to pay?

The Landlord seeks rent arrears up to 10 January 2024 and compensation for damage to the premises. The Landlord relies on the Tenant’s s 56B notice served 8 January 2024.
The Tenant claims she was assaulted by her ex-partner on or about 27 November 2024. She claims not to have resided at the premises since that date having notified the Landlord she was vacating the premises.
The Tenant says she was unaware she was able to withdraw from the Tenancy by giving 48 hours’ notice (on the prescribed form). She claims to have served the required notice pursuant to s 56B on the Landlord by post on 8 January 2024.
Section 56B relevantly states: “56B Withdrawal from tenancy following family violence (1) A tenant under a fixed-term or periodic tenancy may withdraw from the tenancy by giving at least 2 days’ notice to the landlord if— (a) the notice is accompanied by qualifying evidence that the tenant has been a victim of family violence while a tenant of the premises; and (b) the notice is in the approved form and includes the prescribed information. (2) If there are no other tenants under the tenancy at the time of the withdrawal, the tenancy terminates. ...”
To her s 56B notice, the Tenant attached a copy of the front page of a Without Notice Application for Protection Order, accepted by the Court for filing on 5 January 2024.
At least one of the following forms of supporting evidence must be included under a withdrawing tenant’s s 56B (prescribed) notice: a. Statutory Declaration by the Tenant: A statutory declaration made by the tenant stating they have been a victim of family violence during the tenancy, completed in front of an authorised witness. b. Protection Order: A copy of the first page of a Protection Order if issued during the tenancy and still in force, or a copy of the first page of a Protection Order issued before the tenancy started, along with a written statement by the tenant confirming they have been a victim of family violence at the tenancy address. c. Police Safety Order: A copy of a Police Safety Order issued during the tenancy. d. Police Charging Document: A copy of a Police Charging Document relating to family violence against the tenant, filed during the tenancy. e. Written Statement from a Prescribed Person: A written statement, included on page 2 of the prescribed notice, which a prescribed person (such as a medical practitioner, social worker, counsellor, etc.) must complete, stating they have reasonable grounds to believe the tenant has been a victim of family violence during the tenancy. f. Statutory Declaration by a Prescribed Person: A statutory declaration by a prescribed person stating they have reasonable grounds to believe the tenant has been a victim of family violence during the tenancy, completed in front of an authorised witness.
The introduction of s 56B in the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020 reflects a legislative response to the need for greater protection for victims of family violence, focusing on procedural mechanisms to facilitate quick and effective withdrawal from tenancies.
The plain language of s 56B and the prescribed form, available for download on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s website, outlines the requirements for withdrawal from a tenancy due to family violence.
The purpose of s 56B is to protect victims of family violence by allowing them to exit their tenancy obligations quickly and safely.
Section 56B is quite prescriptive regarding notice requirements. Precision is necessary because a 48-hour notice provision of this kind could potentially undermine the integrity of the legal framework governing the termination of residential tenancies if it were not strictly defined and therefore open to abuse.
The supporting evidence criteria provide a structured legal framework for tenants to substantiate their claims of family violence. These criteria ensure that the claims are credible and based on substantial evidence, striking a fair balance between tenant safety and, in this case, the Landlord’s certainty of tenure.
The criteria are designed to ensure that only genuine cases of family violence are considered under s 56B.
The Tribunal’s role under s 56B is primarily to verify that the Tenant’s notice and accompanying evidence meet the formal requirements outlined in the statute and prescribed forms. The Family Court, a specialised higher court, has jurisdiction and particular expertise under the Family Violence Act 2018, especially in determining whether family violence has occurred.
The Tenant provided the front page of a Without Notice Application for a Protection Order, bearing the stamp of the Court, acknowledging its acceptance for filing on 5 January 2024. While this does not immediately fit one of the prescribed categories (since it is an application and not an issued order), it does indicate a serious and ongoing situation that warranted legal intervention, and it aligns with the spirit of the supporting evidence requirements. What is the status of this document in terms of the requirements of s 56B and are the s 56B criteria exhaustive?
A temporary protection order under the Family Violence Act 2018 does not constitute a firm finding of family violence by the Family Court. 1 It serves as an interim measure based on the applicant’s pleadings and evidence presented for the without notice application. According to sections 146, 147, and 148 of the Family Violence Act, a temporary order becomes final if the respondent does not contest it within three months, but the respondent has the right to request a hearing to challenge the order. Thus, the Court does not make a definitive finding of family violence until after a full hearing or if the order is uncontested.
The Court issues temporary protection orders based on the balance of probabilities that family violence has occurred and that an order is necessary to protect the applicant or their children.
Consequently, it follows that s 56B could not require a confirmed finding of Family Violence by the Family Court in accordance with the foregoing provisions.
The whole of her application and supporting affidavit is not available to the Tribunal and it is unclear whether a temporary protection order was in fact made.
I did not ask the Tenant whether a Protection Order was made, which could influence a decision-maker’s assessment of the legitimacy of her claim as a victim of family violence and her reasons for withdrawing from the tenancy before the fixed term expired.
If I were assessing the merits of her claim, I would have regarded the acceptance for filing of the Without Notice Application by the Family Court as a factor which corroborates the Tenant’s perception of an immediate threat requiring her withdrawal from the tenancy.
I would then also need to consider whether the delay between the 27 November incident and the Applicant filing her application with the Family Court suggests that the urgency which necessitated the Tenant’s 5 January application, relates to the 27 November 2023 incident alone or, potentially, to ongoing or recent threats or incidents of violence.
There are strict criteria for Without Notice Applications in the Family Court: 2 a. Clear Case on the Merits: The Tenant must provide substantial evidence of a threat. b. Irreparable Injury: There must be an immediate and significant risk. c. No Delay: The application should be timely in response to the threat. 1 Family Violence Act 2008; ss 147-153. 2 Martin v Ryan [1990] 2 NZFLR 209. d. Brief and Provisional Effect: The order is intended as a temporary measure. e. Override of Natural Justice: The person against who the Protection Order is intended to be made does not receive notice of the application and cannot appear in respect of and defend the making of the temporary order. Accordingly, strong grounds must justify bypassing procedural fairness.
The timing of the Protection Order application, then, may arguably impact the assessment of the Tenant’s immediate need for protection and, relevantly, the grounds for her withdrawal from the tenancy. Simply put, the fact that the application was filed over a month after the incident may suggest additional circumstances contributing to the Tenant’s decision to seek protection.
The Tenant’s potential continued relationship with the alleged perpetrator of violence after the 27 November 2023 incident, not put to her, could serve to complicate her claim to withdraw from the tenancy based solely on that incident, although a decision-maker would surely do well to tread cautiously when assessing her allegations and claims based on perceived delay or a continuation of the relationship, given the complexities of family relationships and family violence dynamics.
As detailed in paragraphs 19 to 28, while it might initially seem essential to examine the merits of a tenant’s family violence claims to assess their justification for withdrawal under section 56B of the Act, section 56B actually aims to avoid such scrutiny. Section 56B requires tenants to use a prescribed form and provide evidence from a comprehensive list, thereby bypassing the need for an inquiry into the merits of the claims. The responsibility for examining the merits of a tenant’s claim, insofar as protection orders are concerned, rests with the Family Court.
The provision aims to provide a clear and straightforward mechanism for tenants to withdraw from a tenancy due to family violence without requiring the Tribunal to delve into the merits or details of the family violence claims themselves. The focus is on ensuring that the tenant provides the necessary notice and one of the forms of supporting evidence specified in the legislation.
The intent is to avoid subjective assessments and ensure a clear, consistent process for tenants who are victims of family violence to withdraw from their tenancy agreements if the clear legal conditions are met.
Given this, the Tenant’s notice must strictly comply with the prescribed forms of evidence. If the evidence provided is not one of the specified forms (such as a final protection order, police safety order, or a statutory declaration by a prescribed person), then it does not meet the requirements of section 56B, regardless of the underlying circumstances or intentions.
Therefore, while the Tenant’s application for a Protection Order indicates a serious situation, it does not fulfil the strict evidentiary criteria set out in section 56B for withdrawing from a tenancy.
The prescribed drafting of s 56B is intended to ensure that only specific, unequivocal forms of evidence are accepted to avoid any ambiguity or the need for further inquiry into the legitimacy of the claims.

When did the Tenancy terminate, then?

The Tenant vacated the premises on 27 November 2024 and provided late notice under section 56B, on 8 January 2024, which I have found invalid as it did not comply with the strict requirements of that section.
Consequently, the Tenant remained liable under the fixed-term tenancy until a proper termination could be agreed upon or ordered.
The Tenant immediately advised the Landlord that she had left the premises and asked to be let off the fixed-term tenancy.
The Tenant could have provided a valid section 56B notice or applied to the Tribunal for a reduction or termination of the fixed-term tenancy under section 66 due to unforeseen hardship (family violence). However, the Tenant said she did not know of s 56B, and the ability to withdraw from a tenancy on the basis of family violence. Further she did not apply to reduce the tenancy under s 66; thus, I have not considered section 66.
The Landlord initially offered for the Tenant to leave early if she could find a replacement tenant, but upon discovering damage at the premises, further discussions occurred, and a new agreement was made between the parties for the termination of the tenancy.
It is generally agreed, and the text evidence between the parties and their responses to my questions at the hearing confirmed, the Landlord was prepared to bring the fixed-term tenancy to an end if damage inside the home was rectified and the lawns were mowed, which pre-conditions appear to have been substantially, if not completely, performed by the Tenant on or about 19 December 2023, by my review of the text exchange and the oral evidence.
Section 49 deals with a Landlord’s obligations to mitigate loss and is relevant to the Landlord’s claim for rent arrears: “49 Mitigation of damage or loss Where any party to a tenancy agreement breaches any of the provisions of the agreement or of this Act, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit the damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.”
Further, when one party makes a clear and unambiguous promise or representation intended to affect the legal relationship between the parties, and the other party relies on this promise to their detriment, the party who made the promise or representation can be estopped (prevented) from going back on their word.
In this case, the property manager’s assurance that "everything else is okay" constituted a clear and unambiguous representation. The Tenant relied on the agreement that the tenancy would be terminated upon fulfilment of specific pre- conditions, namely fixing the walls and mowing the lawns. The Tenant acted upon these representations by completing the required tasks, reasonably believing that her obligations were met and that the tenancy would be terminated.
As established in A to Z Rental Properties Ltd v Buick, 3 such reliance prevents the promisor (the Landlord) from going back on their word and claiming additional rent or compensation beyond what was understood at that time.
The text message exchange on 19 December 2023 shows the Tenant asking if the Landlord was satisfied with the property, stating: “I honestly can’t take this anymore court is tomorrow and I need this done with I mentally can’t take it anymore. I’ve fixed the property which [sic] and covering [sic] the cost, please please can you help me remove myself and get some of my bond back to help cover the cost so I can move on please.”
The property manager responded that he was checking the house, and by subsequent text, that "...everything else is okay" except for mowing the grass.
The Tenant says she thought no further significant actions were required regarding the property’s condition, aside from the lawns, which she told the Landlord she could not do as it there was no grass, just weeds and stones. She again requested to be let off the fixed-term tenancy. The Landlord replied that he would discuss the matter with the Landlord that evening and, “...tomorrow morning I will try and sort this out.” No further evidence was provided by either party concerning any discussions between the property manager and the Landlord.
The property manager's agreement to release the tenant of the fixed-term tenancy following repair of the walls, his subsequent inspection of the property and concurrent assurance that “everything else is okay,” despite indicating he would discuss the matter with the Landlord, provided a basis for the Tenant’s reasonable reliance. The Tenant had fulfilled the required rectifications, and the property manager’s acknowledgment of this fulfilment supported the Tenant’s understanding that the tenancy obligations were substantially met. 3 A to Z Rental Properties Ltd v Buick TT-11-1930-CH, 18 August 2011.
The property manager explained that “everything else is ok” did not mean everything was ok, and claimed it was always the case that the property manager would have to speak with the owner.
I take the property manager’s words at face value. His suggestion that he needed to check with the Landlord before confirming the termination and that the repair work completed by the Tenant’s contractor was not up to standard did not invalidate the Tenant’s reliance and was not part of their agreement, on balance.
The Tenant believed she was dealing with the owner all along. When the property manager was telephoned to give evidence at the hearing, she heard his voice and identified him as the owner. I corrected her, stating he was the property manager, not the owner. Her reaction, which appeared to be one of spontaneous surprise, demonstrated her lack of awareness concerning the existence of another party, let alone a decision-maker responsible for confirming the pre- conditions for termination were satisfied. The property manager suggested she should have known as the tenancy agreement refers to an agency, but it is not always so clearcut to Tenants, who seldom have any direct interactions with the legal owner. Importantly, all her discussions and agreements had been with the property manager. I remind myself of the property manager’s text message, which refers to the owner, and consider the Tenant should have had some idea that there was another party involved. However, the identity and role of this individual may not have been apparent to her until the property manager mentioned meeting with the owner, which came after their agreement and her reliance.
The property manager checked the property and indicated it was satisfactory. In the Landlord’s evidence, there is one photograph of a repaired hole next to a light switch that required painting. However, the Tenant asserts that, to her knowledge, everything else was checked and acceptable. The Tenant’s father, who oversaw the repairs, candidly noted the photograph indicated a missed repair which he regarded as an oversight. He stated that he would have had the contractor return to fix it if he had been aware of the issue. He claimed that all the damage was upstairs and that it had all been repaired. Notably, the Landlord did not provide any photos of additional, unsuccessful repairs in the upstairs walls.
The Landlord’s other photographs do not clearly prove that the damage occurred during the tenancy, and there are no pre-tenancy photographs which allow me to make a fair comparison. Pre-tenancy reports with photographs that are too small or blurry to make out wall surfaces are unhelpful for hearing purposes. I could see a mark on the stairwell wall in a photograph ostensibly taken before the tenancy, for which the Landlord provided a photograph taken after the tenancy and sought to claim compensation. It is insufficient for the Landlord to claim the house was brand new without providing proof.
Finally, while the Landlord’s text message and willingness to terminate the tenancy early upon the Tenant fulfilling certain conditions indicate efforts to mitigate rent loss, the Landlord’s insistence on the Tenant repairing the damage rather than promptly hiring a contractor also extended the vacancy period unnecessarily.
The Tenant’s reliance on the property manager’s representations and promises was reasonable, and issue of a single, visible repair does not change that.
Considering the Tenant's fulfilment of the conditions communicated by the property manager and the urgency of her situation, it is reasonable to determine that the tenancy effectively ended on 19 December 2023.
I find the Tenant’s liability for rent should end on 19 December 2023.
The Landlord is entitled to a refund of the bond to cover any rent arrears up to 19 December 2023.

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.
As previously stated, the there are no pre-tenancy photographs which provide an adequate basis for comparison of the premises before and after the tenancy, and it is insufficient for the Landlord to claim the house was brand new as a basis for proving the damage was not present in any given area.
The Tenant’s reliance on the property manager’s representation that "everything else is okay" was reasonable, and this, coupled with the absence of clear evidence, contradicts the Landlord’s claim for extensive painting costs.
However, given the visible repair by the light switch at the end of the upstairs hallway, the Tenant should bear nominal responsibility for this specific repair.
The Landlord is awarded a nominal amount of $200 for the repair by the light switch, recognising that while the Tenant attempted to address the damage, the repair was not completed to a professional standard.
The Tenant has applied for suppression. To avoid any chance of escalation as a result of what is contained in this Order, and to ensure the Tenant’s protection from harm, I have granted her request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4799139 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4799139 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When did the tenancy end, and how much rent is the Tenant liable to pay?

When did the Tenancy terminate, then?

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

When did the tenancy end, and how much rent is the Tenant liable to pay?

When did the Tenancy terminate, then?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions