What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4854425 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4854425?

Cleaning: $200.10 awarded to landlord; Curtain Rail (Joint Liability: $200.10 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $747.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.10 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,560.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,337.14 awarded to landlord; Waste Disposal Blockage: $184.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4854425?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4854425?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10889302-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4854425 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4854425?

Cleaning: $200.10 awarded to landlord; Curtain Rail (Joint Liability: $200.10 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $747.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.10 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.10 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,560.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,337.14 awarded to landlord; Waste Disposal Blockage: $184.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4854425?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4854425?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10889302-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4854425 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4854425 — net $1,521.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 February 2024 (joint liability	$1,560.00	Rent arrears to 11 February 2024 (joint liability
Rent arrears 12-23 February 2024	$1,337.14	Rent arrears 12-23 February 2024
Stove replacement (joint liability	$747.50	Stove replacement (joint liability
Gutter cleaning (joint liability	$200.10	Gutter cleaning (joint liability
Wall repairs (joint liability	$200.10	Wall repairs (joint liability
Window repairs (joint liability	$200.10	Window repairs (joint liability
Curtain rail (joint liability	$200.10	Curtain rail (joint liability
Waste disposal blockage	$184.00	Waste disposal blockage
Filing fee reimbursement (joint liability	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement (joint liability
Net award	$1,521.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,521.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ and tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] shall pay [The landlord/s] $8.34 immediately, for joint liability after deduction of the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,521.14 immediately, being rent arrears from 12 to 23 February 2024 and the cost of repairs to the waste disposal.

Reasons

All three parties attended the hearing on 20 September 2024. [Tenant 1] attended the hearing by telephone, as requested by the Tribunal. I am satisfied that in doing so, [Tenant 1] did not contravene her bail conditions.
The tenancy commenced on 28 November 2022 at a weekly rent of $780.00. A bond of $3,120.00 was paid.
On 12 February 2024, the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy (application 4805257). In its decision dated 22 February 2024, the Tribunal noted that [Tenant 2] had served notice to terminate the periodic tenancy on 15 January 2024. The final day of the tenancy was 11 February 2024. The Tribunal noted that [Tenant 2] had vacated the property and [Tenant 1] continued to reside there.
The Tribunal also recorded that, if there are multiple tenants named on the tenancy agreement, and one of the tenants gives the landlord a termination notice, this ends the tenancy for all the tenants. The Tribunal granted possession to the landlord on 23 February 2024.
On 5 April 2024, the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. Rent arrears
The tenancy agreement records that the tenants are jointly and severally liable to the landlord for any debt arising out of the tenancy agreement and for performance of their obligations under the agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). This reflects the position at common law.
When [Tenant 2] vacated on 11 February 2024, according to the landlord’s rent summary, the rent arrears were $1,560.00. I can see no reason why the tenants are not jointly liable for these rent arrears in accordance with the tenancy agreement.
[Tenant 1] expressed doubt that a joint tenancy can be terminated by notice from one of the tenants. The nature of a periodic tenancy is that it continues for each successive period until determined by notice. In other words, the agreement continues for each periodic term only if all the parties agree. A periodic tenancy may therefore be terminated by one of the tenants giving notice without the agreement of the other tenants (Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 2 All ER 1, HL).
The next issue is whether both tenants should be held liable for rent arrears after 11 February 2024. [Tenant 2] had validly given notice to terminate the tenancy and handed back all the keys. [Tenant 1] admitted that she climbed back in through a window.
Section 60 of the Act provides that, where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has been terminated, the obligations of the tenant continue as if the tenancy were still subsisting.
It follows, in my view, that [Tenant 1] is solely responsible for rent arrears from 12 February to 23 February 2024 in the sum of $1,337.14. This outcome is in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case (section 85 of the Act). [Tenant 1] had validly given notice to end the tenancy and vacated, while [Tenant 1] continued to enjoy the benefits of residence, contrary to the landlord’s wishes. Her obligations as a tenant continued. Damage to 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 caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or 4 weeks' rent. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent.
The tenancy agreement stated that the premises were insured but did not provide the insurance excess, which is contrary to section 13A(2) of the Act. I have assumed a typical excess of $550.00.
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.
The landlord claimed the cost of a replacement stove top. Both tenants said that this was damaged while cooking. With reasonable care, cooking can be performed without such damage. I award the cost of replacement ($747.50).
The landlord relied on an invoice from [contractor] for the remaining claims. This also included a claim for repair to the “stove cover board”. I have been unable to find a photograph of this damage, and it is unclear whether the repair is related to the cooking accident. On the evidence available, I decline to award this cost, which was not individually quantified on the invoice.
The landlord claimed the cost of cleaning the external gutters of cigarette waste. Ordinarily, this might be seen as part of the landlord’s maintenance obligation. However, [Tenant 1] accepted that she had sat on the roof smoking. The tenants are jointly liable for this cost because it occurred during their joint tenancy and is not related to maintenance.
The landlord claimed the cost of replacing two broken latches of the ground floor bedroom window. The tenant said the window she climbed through was already broken. The landlord’s ingoing photographs do not show the windows in poor condition or missing latches. The landlord said they found broken window latches on 12 February 2024, as shown in their photographs. I consider it has not been proved that the window was broken when [Tenant 2] regained entry. I find the tenants jointly liable for this cost, on the basis that the latches were broken during their tenancy.
The landlord claimed the cost of a curtain rail that fell off, causing damage to the wall. [Tenant 2] said he only became aware of this damage as he was leaving. [Tenant 1] said the curtain rail was always loose, as was the chandelier shown in the landlord’s photograph. The rail is shown intact in the landlord’s ingoing photographs dated 28 November 2022. There is a photograph taken by the landlord on 23 February 2024, showing part of the rail hanging down vertically, still attached to the wall at one end, and the rest missing. It looks like the curtain rail and the fixtures into the wall have been partly removed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claimed the cost of repairing a wall inside a wardrobe. Again [Tenant 2] said he discovered this when he was packing. [Tenant 1] said neither she, her children nor [Tenant 2] had caused this damage. The landlord’s photographs, however, show the same wardrobe apparently undamaged at the start of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability. I find the tenants jointly liable for this damage because it occurred during their joint tenancy.
The landlord claimed the cost of repairing the waste disposal. They had to remove some stones and a rag. The landlord said [Tenant 2] did not report this damage. [Tenant 2] said the waste-disposal was still working when he left. [Tenant 1] said she did not use the sink after [Tenant 2] left, because he had taken the fridge and pots and pans, and she considered the waste disposal blockage to be fair wear and tear. The waste disposal was found blocked after [Tenant 2] had vacated due to careless use. It is possible it was damaged earlier and went unnoticed, but the timing of discovery is indicative. I find that [Tenant 1] should meet the cost of repair.
The [contractor]’s invoice was itemised but did not quantify the cost of each item. I have therefore divided the invoice (totalling $1,000.50) equally between the 5 items. This means that each repair item represents $200.10. The tenants are jointly liable for the stove top ($747.50) the gutter cleaning ($200.10) the repairs to the wall ($200.10) the window repairs ($200.10) and the curtain rail ($200.10). [Tenant 1] is liable for the waste disposal ($184.00). Application of the Bond
The bond was security for the tenants’ joint obligations during the tenancy. The bond of $3,120.00 covers most of the tenant’s joint liabilities ($3,128.34). I have applied the bond in satisfaction of the tenants’ joint obligations, leaving a balance they are jointly and severally liable to pay of $8.34.
[Tenant 1] remains solely liable for the amounts awarded against her ($1,521.14). Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord’s application has succeeded. I award the filing fee. The landlord also claimed the filing fee from the earlier application (4805257). The Adjudicator did not address the issue of costs but seemed critical of the landlord. It may be that the Adjudicator did not consider a costs award was justified. In any event, I do not have jurisdiction to award costs arising from a different application before a different judicial officer.
The landlord requested suppression, and this is granted. The Tribunal previously granted suppression to the tenants having regard to the “wider familial context of the dispute”. I doubt there is much public interest in the conduct of the parties, which seems to have arisen out of difficult personal circumstances. I grant suppression to the tenants to protect their privacy interest.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4854425 — net $1,521.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 February 2024 (joint liability	$1,560.00	Rent arrears to 11 February 2024 (joint liability
Rent arrears 12-23 February 2024	$1,337.14	Rent arrears 12-23 February 2024
Stove replacement (joint liability	$747.50	Stove replacement (joint liability
Gutter cleaning (joint liability	$200.10	Gutter cleaning (joint liability
Wall repairs (joint liability	$200.10	Wall repairs (joint liability
Window repairs (joint liability	$200.10	Window repairs (joint liability
Curtain rail (joint liability	$200.10	Curtain rail (joint liability
Waste disposal blockage	$184.00	Waste disposal blockage
Filing fee reimbursement (joint liability	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement (joint liability
Net award	$1,521.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,521.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ and tenants’ names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] shall pay [The landlord/s] $8.34 immediately, for joint liability after deduction of the bond, calculated as shown in the table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $1,521.14 immediately, being rent arrears from 12 to 23 February 2024 and the cost of repairs to the waste disposal.

Reasons

All three parties attended the hearing on 20 September 2024. [Tenant 1] attended the hearing by telephone, as requested by the Tribunal. I am satisfied that in doing so, [Tenant 1] did not contravene her bail conditions.
The tenancy commenced on 28 November 2022 at a weekly rent of $780.00. A bond of $3,120.00 was paid.
On 12 February 2024, the landlord applied for termination of the tenancy (application 4805257). In its decision dated 22 February 2024, the Tribunal noted that [Tenant 2] had served notice to terminate the periodic tenancy on 15 January 2024. The final day of the tenancy was 11 February 2024. The Tribunal noted that [Tenant 2] had vacated the property and [Tenant 1] continued to reside there.
The Tribunal also recorded that, if there are multiple tenants named on the tenancy agreement, and one of the tenants gives the landlord a termination notice, this ends the tenancy for all the tenants. The Tribunal granted possession to the landlord on 23 February 2024.
On 5 April 2024, the landlord applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. Rent arrears
The tenancy agreement records that the tenants are jointly and severally liable to the landlord for any debt arising out of the tenancy agreement and for performance of their obligations under the agreement and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). This reflects the position at common law.
When [Tenant 2] vacated on 11 February 2024, according to the landlord’s rent summary, the rent arrears were $1,560.00. I can see no reason why the tenants are not jointly liable for these rent arrears in accordance with the tenancy agreement.
[Tenant 1] expressed doubt that a joint tenancy can be terminated by notice from one of the tenants. The nature of a periodic tenancy is that it continues for each successive period until determined by notice. In other words, the agreement continues for each periodic term only if all the parties agree. A periodic tenancy may therefore be terminated by one of the tenants giving notice without the agreement of the other tenants (Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 2 All ER 1, HL).
The next issue is whether both tenants should be held liable for rent arrears after 11 February 2024. [Tenant 2] had validly given notice to terminate the tenancy and handed back all the keys. [Tenant 1] admitted that she climbed back in through a window.
Section 60 of the Act provides that, where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has been terminated, the obligations of the tenant continue as if the tenancy were still subsisting.
It follows, in my view, that [Tenant 1] is solely responsible for rent arrears from 12 February to 23 February 2024 in the sum of $1,337.14. This outcome is in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of the case (section 85 of the Act). [Tenant 1] had validly given notice to end the tenancy and vacated, while [Tenant 1] continued to enjoy the benefits of residence, contrary to the landlord’s wishes. Her obligations as a tenant continued. Damage to 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 caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or 4 weeks' rent. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent.
The tenancy agreement stated that the premises were insured but did not provide the insurance excess, which is contrary to section 13A(2) of the Act. I have assumed a typical excess of $550.00.
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.
The landlord claimed the cost of a replacement stove top. Both tenants said that this was damaged while cooking. With reasonable care, cooking can be performed without such damage. I award the cost of replacement ($747.50).
The landlord relied on an invoice from [contractor] for the remaining claims. This also included a claim for repair to the “stove cover board”. I have been unable to find a photograph of this damage, and it is unclear whether the repair is related to the cooking accident. On the evidence available, I decline to award this cost, which was not individually quantified on the invoice.
The landlord claimed the cost of cleaning the external gutters of cigarette waste. Ordinarily, this might be seen as part of the landlord’s maintenance obligation. However, [Tenant 1] accepted that she had sat on the roof smoking. The tenants are jointly liable for this cost because it occurred during their joint tenancy and is not related to maintenance.
The landlord claimed the cost of replacing two broken latches of the ground floor bedroom window. The tenant said the window she climbed through was already broken. The landlord’s ingoing photographs do not show the windows in poor condition or missing latches. The landlord said they found broken window latches on 12 February 2024, as shown in their photographs. I consider it has not been proved that the window was broken when [Tenant 2] regained entry. I find the tenants jointly liable for this cost, on the basis that the latches were broken during their tenancy.
The landlord claimed the cost of a curtain rail that fell off, causing damage to the wall. [Tenant 2] said he only became aware of this damage as he was leaving. [Tenant 1] said the curtain rail was always loose, as was the chandelier shown in the landlord’s photograph. The rail is shown intact in the landlord’s ingoing photographs dated 28 November 2022. There is a photograph taken by the landlord on 23 February 2024, showing part of the rail hanging down vertically, still attached to the wall at one end, and the rest missing. It looks like the curtain rail and the fixtures into the wall have been partly removed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claimed the cost of repairing a wall inside a wardrobe. Again [Tenant 2] said he discovered this when he was packing. [Tenant 1] said neither she, her children nor [Tenant 2] had caused this damage. The landlord’s photographs, however, show the same wardrobe apparently undamaged at the start of the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability. I find the tenants jointly liable for this damage because it occurred during their joint tenancy.
The landlord claimed the cost of repairing the waste disposal. They had to remove some stones and a rag. The landlord said [Tenant 2] did not report this damage. [Tenant 2] said the waste-disposal was still working when he left. [Tenant 1] said she did not use the sink after [Tenant 2] left, because he had taken the fridge and pots and pans, and she considered the waste disposal blockage to be fair wear and tear. The waste disposal was found blocked after [Tenant 2] had vacated due to careless use. It is possible it was damaged earlier and went unnoticed, but the timing of discovery is indicative. I find that [Tenant 1] should meet the cost of repair.
The [contractor]’s invoice was itemised but did not quantify the cost of each item. I have therefore divided the invoice (totalling $1,000.50) equally between the 5 items. This means that each repair item represents $200.10. The tenants are jointly liable for the stove top ($747.50) the gutter cleaning ($200.10) the repairs to the wall ($200.10) the window repairs ($200.10) and the curtain rail ($200.10). [Tenant 1] is liable for the waste disposal ($184.00). Application of the Bond
The bond was security for the tenants’ joint obligations during the tenancy. The bond of $3,120.00 covers most of the tenant’s joint liabilities ($3,128.34). I have applied the bond in satisfaction of the tenants’ joint obligations, leaving a balance they are jointly and severally liable to pay of $8.34.
[Tenant 1] remains solely liable for the amounts awarded against her ($1,521.14). Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord’s application has succeeded. I award the filing fee. The landlord also claimed the filing fee from the earlier application (4805257). The Adjudicator did not address the issue of costs but seemed critical of the landlord. It may be that the Adjudicator did not consider a costs award was justified. In any event, I do not have jurisdiction to award costs arising from a different application before a different judicial officer.
The landlord requested suppression, and this is granted. The Tribunal previously granted suppression to the tenants having regard to the “wider familial context of the dispute”. I doubt there is much public interest in the conduct of the parties, which seems to have arisen out of difficult personal circumstances. I grant suppression to the tenants to protect their privacy interest.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4854425 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4854425 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions