What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4874200 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4874200?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4874200?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4874200?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10945155-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4874200 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4874200?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4874200?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4874200?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10945155-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4874200 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4874200 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4874200 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm Sunday 10 November 2024.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $20.44 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The tenant’s cross application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, compensation and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal shall terminate a tenancy where: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the rent has been at least 5 working days in arrear; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice advising the tenant of the arrear, the dates for which rent was overdue, the amount or amounts of overdue rent, and the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice; and c. each notice stated how many other notices (if any) the landlord had given the tenant under this paragraph in relation to the same tenancy and 90-day period; and d. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice. See section 55(1)(aa) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says that the tenant has failed to pay the rent on time for a significant period. They have also issued three 90-day notices earlier this year. On each occasion the landlord says that the tenant was in arrears. The first notice was emailed to the tenant on 10 January 2024, the second notice on 16 January 2024 and the third on 9 April 2024.
In this case I find the landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
The grounds have been established and the tenancy must be terminated.

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 landlord claims compensation for dirty curtains. They say that there are dirty finger marks on the curtains where people come in and out of the house.
This claim is premature. The tenant is still residing at the premises and is yet to vacate. Claims of this type are filed at the conclusion of the tenancy where the tenant has vacated the premises and has failed to return the premises back to the landlord in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. A tenant must be afforded the opportunity to clean the premises prior to moving out.
Accordingly, this claim 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 has screwed a cordless vacuum cleaner to the wall of the apartment. They also claim that the tenant has damaged a laundry wall where sticky tape has been placed to secure a washing machine hose.
These claims are also premature.
The tenant is still residing at the premises and is yet to vacate. Claims of this type are filed at the conclusion of the tenancy where the tenant has vacated the premises and has failed to repair any minor damage. They are referred to as vacated damage claims. While the tenant is still residing there he still can rectify any possible damage, except for damage which is considered fair wear and tear.
These claims must also be dismissed. Tenant’s cross application: Work Order:
The tenant seeks a work order in respect of the carpet, dishwasher and laundry fan.
The tenant says that the carpet has areas which are threadbare. The tenant says that the dishwasher sometimes falls forward with the contents falling on the floor. The tenant also claims that the dryer is not vented outside and because of this excess steam and moisture build up occurs with the apartment.
In my view the tenant’s request for a work order is now a moot point given that the tenancy is to terminate pursuant to the above order. In any event I would not have issued a work order for these types of issues given that, in my view they do not amount to a breach of landlord responsibilities.
The request for a work order is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Under section 45, a landlord must: provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair comply with all requirements in respect of smoke alarms and insulation set out in the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health and safety provide an adequate means for the collection and storage of water if there is no reticulated supply
Breaching any of these obligations is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant claims that the apartment insulation was inadequate.
The landlord says that when the remedial repairs were done they assumed that the body corporate had taken care of the required insulation. When the landlord made enquiries following the tenant’s application they realised that they did not have a certificate of compliance for the insulation. They then went about and had the insulation topped up.
They say that this was an error by the body corporate who failed to ensure that this had been done during the remediation process.
I am satisfied that there was no intention by the landlord to deliberately circumvent the insulation requirements under the Healthy Homes regulations. This was a clear oversight where it is reasonable for them to rely on a third party such as a body corporate in respect of this.
The claim is dismissed.
The tenant’s claim in respect of the landlord failing to maintain is also dismissed as there is no evidence filed which supports this claim. The tenant claims that there is mould on the carpet which he says may indicate a possible earlier leak from the hot water cylinder. In the absence of any supporting evidence this claim must be dismissed. I also find that there has been no loss of amenity in respect of the issues raised by tenant.
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 successful – see section 95A RTA.
Section 95A (4) of the Act also allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
In the case of Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135 at [2]-[3],[13], and [18], the Supreme Court stated the principle of open justice was fundamental to the common law system of civil and criminal justice. The Court stated that it was well established that there were circumstances in which the interests of justice required departure from the general principle, but only to the extent required to serve the administration of justice. The Court referred to the administration of justice standard as capable of accommodating the particular circumstances of individual cases with consideration given to the broader public interest. The Court went onto endorse the principle in ASB Bank Ltd v AB [2010] 3 NZLR 427 (HC), stating, that there must be specific adverse consequences sufficient to justify an exception to the rule, adding that the threshold was a high one
While the facts and reasoning of the decision may be in the public interest, in these circumstances, I do not consider that interest necessarily extends to the tenant’s name or address of the property. If the tenant’s name is published then this will have a direct impact on the tenant’s dependant child which, in my view would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the tenant’s breach. I have also taken into account the tenant’s explanation in respect of the late rent payments.
Accordingly, I also order suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
As advised to the parties during the hearing the bond will remain with the bond centre until such time as it is released by mutual agreement or pursuant to an order from the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4874200 — Tenancy dispute

Tenancy Tribunal case 4874200 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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