What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4879083 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $61.50 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4879083?

Lawns and Garden Work: $34.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4879083?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4879083?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10708664-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4879083 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $61.50 from the bond, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4879083?

Lawns and Garden Work: $34.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4879083?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4879083?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10708664-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4879083 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4879083 — net $61.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates (agreed	$27.00	Water rates (agreed
Lawns and garden work (agreed	$34.50	Lawns and garden work (agreed
Net award	$61.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$61.50

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $61.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has agreed to the amounts claimed for water rates and garden work, so I make an order accordingly.

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 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 says that the tenant caused water damage to the kitchen and laundry flooring and skirting, and it all needs replaced. The landlord says this was caused either by the tenant’s washing machine or by dishes being washed in the laundry sink. The landlord sent a builder to the premises after the tenancy ended and in his opinion the damage had been caused by the tenant’s washing machine, the skirting was dry, and there was no sign of an ongoing leak.
I find that the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove their claim. The tenant contacted the landlord around 2 months into the tenancy as he was concerned with dampness around a wall in the kitchen and he sent a photograph. The landlord asked him to check the laundry behind and all was good with no leaks. The landlord did not follow-up. I therefore find it likely that the damage was already pre-existing at the start of the tenancy. The landlord failed to mitigate any losses in any event as they did not send out a plumber to investigate. Although the water damage to the skirting is obvious, the landlord has not provided any evidence to prove there is damage to the flooring.
This part of the claim is not proven and must be dismissed. Exemplary damages
[The landlord/s] claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeded the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement and that the tenant was unlawfully subletting.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching these obligations without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00 and $1,500.00 respectively. See section 40(3A)(e), section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says they never met the tenant at the premises until the final inspection. When they visited during the tenancy, they met an elderly lady with a young child. The lady said she did not know the tenants. The landlord also points to cooking facilities in the garage and additional mattresses.
I do not find that the tenant has committed an unlawful act. The cooking facilities and mattresses in the garage do not indicate that anyone else was living at the premises without additional supporting evidence. I accept the tenant’s evidence that he did have family and friends staying over from time to time but there were no additional tenants, and he was not subletting. The landlord does not deny he had a conversation with the tenant about his mother coming to stay and although she did not identify herself as such, there may be other reasons for this rather than her living at the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement.
This part of the landlord’s claim is not proven and must be dismissed.
Both parties agree to name suppression for each other so their names will not be published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4879083 — net $61.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates (agreed	$27.00	Water rates (agreed
Lawns and garden work (agreed	$34.50	Lawns and garden work (agreed
Net award	$61.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$61.50

Order

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $61.50 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as shown in table below.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant has applied for a refund of the bond.
The landlord has applied for compensation and exemplary damages following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has agreed to the amounts claimed for water rates and garden work, so I make an order accordingly.

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 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 says that the tenant caused water damage to the kitchen and laundry flooring and skirting, and it all needs replaced. The landlord says this was caused either by the tenant’s washing machine or by dishes being washed in the laundry sink. The landlord sent a builder to the premises after the tenancy ended and in his opinion the damage had been caused by the tenant’s washing machine, the skirting was dry, and there was no sign of an ongoing leak.
I find that the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to prove their claim. The tenant contacted the landlord around 2 months into the tenancy as he was concerned with dampness around a wall in the kitchen and he sent a photograph. The landlord asked him to check the laundry behind and all was good with no leaks. The landlord did not follow-up. I therefore find it likely that the damage was already pre-existing at the start of the tenancy. The landlord failed to mitigate any losses in any event as they did not send out a plumber to investigate. Although the water damage to the skirting is obvious, the landlord has not provided any evidence to prove there is damage to the flooring.
This part of the claim is not proven and must be dismissed. Exemplary damages
[The landlord/s] claims that the number of people living at the premises exceeded the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement and that the tenant was unlawfully subletting.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded. See section 40(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching these obligations without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00 and $1,500.00 respectively. See section 40(3A)(e), section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord says they never met the tenant at the premises until the final inspection. When they visited during the tenancy, they met an elderly lady with a young child. The lady said she did not know the tenants. The landlord also points to cooking facilities in the garage and additional mattresses.
I do not find that the tenant has committed an unlawful act. The cooking facilities and mattresses in the garage do not indicate that anyone else was living at the premises without additional supporting evidence. I accept the tenant’s evidence that he did have family and friends staying over from time to time but there were no additional tenants, and he was not subletting. The landlord does not deny he had a conversation with the tenant about his mother coming to stay and although she did not identify herself as such, there may be other reasons for this rather than her living at the premises in breach of the tenancy agreement.
This part of the landlord’s claim is not proven and must be dismissed.
Both parties agree to name suppression for each other so their names will not be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4879083 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4879083 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions