What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4906362 about?

The tribunal order states: Te Rina Ransfield and Heemi Hill must pay [The landlord/s] $314.75

How much money was awarded in case 4906362?

Compensation: $142.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,713.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $432.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4906362?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11014498-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4906362 about?

The tribunal order states: Te Rina Ransfield and Heemi Hill must pay [The landlord/s] $314.75

How much money was awarded in case 4906362?

Compensation: $142.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,713.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $432.25 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4906362?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906362?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11014498-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4906362 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4906362 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4906362 — net $314.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8/6/24	$1,713.00	Rent arrears to 8/6/24
Repairs: Floor repair	$432.25	Repairs: Floor repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation - Locksmith invoice	$142.50	Compensation - Locksmith invoice
Net award	$314.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$314.75

Claims and awards for application 4906362 — net $314.75 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 8/6/24

Amount: $1,713.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 8/6/24

Repairs: Floor repair

Amount: $432.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Floor repair

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Compensation - Locksmith invoice

Amount: $142.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Compensation - Locksmith invoice

Net award

Landlord $314.75

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $314.75

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — Cleaning of outside room
Compensation — Ladder
Property Damage — but I award compensation to the landlord of $142.50 being reimbursement of the cost incurred by the tenant, but invoiced to the landlord, without the landlord’…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Cleanliness Exemplary damages

Order

Te Rina Ransfield and Heemi Hill must pay [The landlord/s] $314.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. a. The landlord attended the hearing by phone. b. The tenants attended in person.
The landlord has applied for: a. rent arrears, b. compensation, c. exemplary damages, d. payment of the bond, and e. reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was periodic and commenced on 5 August 2023 and ended on 8 June 2024. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
Section 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined this application with these provisions in mind.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral evidence and documentation provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided a partial rent summary which stated the rent arrears was $1,714.00 to June 2024. The tenant referred to earlier correspondence from the landlord stating the rent arrears was $1,713.00 and by consent I make an order for rent arrears for this amount to the end of the tenancy.

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 landlord did not provide either a pre-tenancy inspection or post tenancy inspection report for the property. The landlord undertook a post tenancy inspection by phone, with her friend holding the phone and moving around the property.
The tenant was advised that there were no issues from that inspection, and it was only after the post-inspection when the landlord attended the property that she says she had concerns about the state of the property. Garden, rubbish clean up and collection.
The landlord claims $300.00 for tidying the gardens, mowing the lawn and rubbish collection.
The landlord says they paid for garden work and rubbish removal to be undertaken. No invoice was provided.
The tenants say that they removed their rubbish, and any rubbish remaining was present when the tenancy commenced, including paint buckets and the holes for burning rubbish.
As the landlord did not provide any inspection reports and in light of the tenant’s evidence, I find the landlord has not established the claim in respect of the gardens, lawns and rubbish removal. The claim is dismissed. Cleaning of outside room
The landlord seeks $100.00 as reimbursement for two hours spent cleaning an outside room. The landlord says it was dusty and used as a dog kennel.
The tenant disputes this. The tenant says their dog was put in the room when the landlord visited with her smaller dog, to keep the dogs apart. The tenant accepts that the room was used as a shed, but says the concrete floor was cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The tenant also advised that no issues arose when the room was inspected at the end of the tenancy and the landlord agreed with this.
It is for the landlord to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities and with no pre-inspection report, post inspection report or photographs to support the claim the landlord has not established the claim. The claim for cleaning is dismissed. Curtains and net curtains
The landlord claims $200.00 reimbursement of the cost to replace curtains and net curtains she says were removed by the tenants.
The tenants dispute taking any curtains or net curtains. Their evidence was that they purchased curtain racks and curtains during the tenancy and removed these when they vacated and that they left the landlords curtains at the premises. The tenant also raises in an earlier email to them the landlord only sought $100.00 for the curtains and nets.
The landlord has provided no evidence of curtains at start of the tenancy. Photographs provided by the landlord were taken months before the tenancy commenced.
The landlord did not provide any quotes or invoices to support the claim.
The claim for compensation for replacing the curtains and net curtains is dismissed. Ladder
At the hearing the landlord claimed the replacement cost of a ladder she says was taken by the tenants.
The tenant disputes taking a ladder and submitted that the premises were unoccupied following the tenancy for a couple of days and it may have been taken by someone else, which the tenant implied would not be unusual in the area. I consider the tenant’s explanation reasonable and without any further evidence from the landlord and noting that the claim was not included in the application form, I do not make an order in favour of the landlord for the cost of the ladder.

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. Toilet and floor repairs.
In March 2024 the tenant’s discovered a leaked pipe at the back of the toilet. They taped up the pipe and did not inform the landlord. The leak was discovered by the landlord at an inspection a few weeks later. The plywood floor was water damaged.
The landlord claims half the cost of replacing the toilet cistern. The landlord accepts that the tenant did not intentionally or carelessly damage the toilet, that the toilet was over 5 years old (at least) and the landlord was also concerned the plumber had incurred greater expense than necessary by replacing the cistern when all that was required was for a pipe to be repaired.
The landlord’s claim to repair the toilet cistern is dismissed as the repair costs were for fair wear and tear and not any intentional or careless action by the tenant.
The landlord applied for the tenant to pay half the floor repair which in total was $864.49. The claim is for half the cost $432.25.
The landlord advised at the hearing the insurance excess is $600.00. Four weeks rent is $2,000.00.
At the hearing the tenant provided an email from the plumbing firm stating they believe “the toilet cistern had a small leak for a while, potentially even before your whanau moved in. It’s possible that part of the damage to the flooring and walls could have stemmed from the previous tenants”. The landlord disputed this statement.
The tenant has a responsibility to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. See section 40 (1) (d) of the RTA) The tenant did not promptly notify the landlord of the toilet leak.
I consider the landlord should be compensated for the tenants’ failure to notify of the need for the repair. I consider the claim for half the costs of the repair is appropriate to compensate the landlord. The amount ordered is $432.25.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The claim for half the cost of the repair adequately addresses betterment and depreciation.

COMPENSATION CLAIM

Water blasting work not done.

The landlord claims $285.00 which relates to a rent reduction from the start of the tenancy when the landlord says it was agreed the tenant would undertake water blasting.
The landlord did not provide a full rent summary showing the rent reduction, before and after photographs or any agreement in writing about what water b to support the claim.
The tenant, Mr Hill, says he did a bit of the water blasting, which was confirmed in text messages between the tenant and landlord.
The landlord has failed to establish the claim in respect of the water blasting and I dismiss the claim. Broken door knob
During the tenancy a doorknob became jammed, locking one of the tenants in the bathroom, so the other tenant had to remove it.
However, the tenant had the doorknob repaired and invoiced to the landlord without obtaining the landlord’s consent first. The landlord has claimed compensation on the basis the landlord is only required to compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where— (i)the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and (ii)the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so. See section 45(1)(d) of the RTA.
The application form said the landlord sought exemplary damages but at the hearing the landlord indicated reimbursement in the sum of the invoice was claimed. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed but I award compensation to the landlord of $142.50 being reimbursement of the cost incurred by the tenant, but invoiced to the landlord, without the landlord’s approval.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

The landlord seeks exemplary damages from the tenant. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Exemplary damages are sought in relation to the tenant failing to promptly inform the landlord of the toilet leak.
Section 40(1) (d) states that a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, however failure to do so is not included in Schedule 1 A as an unlawful act. The remedy for any breach is therefore compensatory and not exemplary damages. Compensation has been awarded above with respect to the repairs to the toilet floor and the claim for exemplary damages dismissed.

BOND

The bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately for the amounts ordered.

FILING FEE

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

SUPPRESSION

Both parties sought name suppression.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded, I make an order for name suppression for the landlord.
Having regards to the interests of the parties and to the public interest I do not make an order for the tenants to have name suppression. See section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4906362 — net $314.75 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8/6/24	$1,713.00	Rent arrears to 8/6/24
Repairs: Floor repair	$432.25	Repairs: Floor repair
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation - Locksmith invoice	$142.50	Compensation - Locksmith invoice
Net award	$314.75
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$314.75

Claims and awards for application 4906362 — net $314.75 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 8/6/24

Amount: $1,713.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears to 8/6/24

Repairs: Floor repair

Amount: $432.25
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Floor repair

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $27.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Compensation - Locksmith invoice

Amount: $142.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Compensation - Locksmith invoice

Net award

Landlord $314.75

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $314.75

Dismissed claims

Cleaning — Cleaning of outside room
Compensation — Ladder
Property Damage — but I award compensation to the landlord of $142.50 being reimbursement of the cost incurred by the tenant, but invoiced to the landlord, without the landlord’…

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Compensation Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Cleanliness Exemplary damages

Order

Te Rina Ransfield and Heemi Hill must pay [The landlord/s] $314.75 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. a. The landlord attended the hearing by phone. b. The tenants attended in person.
The landlord has applied for: a. rent arrears, b. compensation, c. exemplary damages, d. payment of the bond, and e. reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy was periodic and commenced on 5 August 2023 and ended on 8 June 2024. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood.
The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
Section 85 of the RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. The Tribunal has determined this application with these provisions in mind.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral evidence and documentation provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all evidence.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord provided a partial rent summary which stated the rent arrears was $1,714.00 to June 2024. The tenant referred to earlier correspondence from the landlord stating the rent arrears was $1,713.00 and by consent I make an order for rent arrears for this amount to the end of the tenancy.

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 landlord did not provide either a pre-tenancy inspection or post tenancy inspection report for the property. The landlord undertook a post tenancy inspection by phone, with her friend holding the phone and moving around the property.
The tenant was advised that there were no issues from that inspection, and it was only after the post-inspection when the landlord attended the property that she says she had concerns about the state of the property. Garden, rubbish clean up and collection.
The landlord claims $300.00 for tidying the gardens, mowing the lawn and rubbish collection.
The landlord says they paid for garden work and rubbish removal to be undertaken. No invoice was provided.
The tenants say that they removed their rubbish, and any rubbish remaining was present when the tenancy commenced, including paint buckets and the holes for burning rubbish.
As the landlord did not provide any inspection reports and in light of the tenant’s evidence, I find the landlord has not established the claim in respect of the gardens, lawns and rubbish removal. The claim is dismissed. Cleaning of outside room
The landlord seeks $100.00 as reimbursement for two hours spent cleaning an outside room. The landlord says it was dusty and used as a dog kennel.
The tenant disputes this. The tenant says their dog was put in the room when the landlord visited with her smaller dog, to keep the dogs apart. The tenant accepts that the room was used as a shed, but says the concrete floor was cleaned at the end of the tenancy. The tenant also advised that no issues arose when the room was inspected at the end of the tenancy and the landlord agreed with this.
It is for the landlord to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities and with no pre-inspection report, post inspection report or photographs to support the claim the landlord has not established the claim. The claim for cleaning is dismissed. Curtains and net curtains
The landlord claims $200.00 reimbursement of the cost to replace curtains and net curtains she says were removed by the tenants.
The tenants dispute taking any curtains or net curtains. Their evidence was that they purchased curtain racks and curtains during the tenancy and removed these when they vacated and that they left the landlords curtains at the premises. The tenant also raises in an earlier email to them the landlord only sought $100.00 for the curtains and nets.
The landlord has provided no evidence of curtains at start of the tenancy. Photographs provided by the landlord were taken months before the tenancy commenced.
The landlord did not provide any quotes or invoices to support the claim.
The claim for compensation for replacing the curtains and net curtains is dismissed. Ladder
At the hearing the landlord claimed the replacement cost of a ladder she says was taken by the tenants.
The tenant disputes taking a ladder and submitted that the premises were unoccupied following the tenancy for a couple of days and it may have been taken by someone else, which the tenant implied would not be unusual in the area. I consider the tenant’s explanation reasonable and without any further evidence from the landlord and noting that the claim was not included in the application form, I do not make an order in favour of the landlord for the cost of the ladder.

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. Toilet and floor repairs.
In March 2024 the tenant’s discovered a leaked pipe at the back of the toilet. They taped up the pipe and did not inform the landlord. The leak was discovered by the landlord at an inspection a few weeks later. The plywood floor was water damaged.
The landlord claims half the cost of replacing the toilet cistern. The landlord accepts that the tenant did not intentionally or carelessly damage the toilet, that the toilet was over 5 years old (at least) and the landlord was also concerned the plumber had incurred greater expense than necessary by replacing the cistern when all that was required was for a pipe to be repaired.
The landlord’s claim to repair the toilet cistern is dismissed as the repair costs were for fair wear and tear and not any intentional or careless action by the tenant.
The landlord applied for the tenant to pay half the floor repair which in total was $864.49. The claim is for half the cost $432.25.
The landlord advised at the hearing the insurance excess is $600.00. Four weeks rent is $2,000.00.
At the hearing the tenant provided an email from the plumbing firm stating they believe “the toilet cistern had a small leak for a while, potentially even before your whanau moved in. It’s possible that part of the damage to the flooring and walls could have stemmed from the previous tenants”. The landlord disputed this statement.
The tenant has a responsibility to notify the landlord, as soon as possible after discovery, of any damage to the premises, or of the need for any repairs. See section 40 (1) (d) of the RTA) The tenant did not promptly notify the landlord of the toilet leak.
I consider the landlord should be compensated for the tenants’ failure to notify of the need for the repair. I consider the claim for half the costs of the repair is appropriate to compensate the landlord. The amount ordered is $432.25.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The claim for half the cost of the repair adequately addresses betterment and depreciation.

COMPENSATION CLAIM

Water blasting work not done.

The landlord claims $285.00 which relates to a rent reduction from the start of the tenancy when the landlord says it was agreed the tenant would undertake water blasting.
The landlord did not provide a full rent summary showing the rent reduction, before and after photographs or any agreement in writing about what water b to support the claim.
The tenant, Mr Hill, says he did a bit of the water blasting, which was confirmed in text messages between the tenant and landlord.
The landlord has failed to establish the claim in respect of the water blasting and I dismiss the claim. Broken door knob
During the tenancy a doorknob became jammed, locking one of the tenants in the bathroom, so the other tenant had to remove it.
However, the tenant had the doorknob repaired and invoiced to the landlord without obtaining the landlord’s consent first. The landlord has claimed compensation on the basis the landlord is only required to compensate the tenant for any reasonable expenses incurred by the tenant in repairing the premises where— (i)the state of disrepair has arisen otherwise than as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement by the tenant and is likely to cause injury to persons or property or is otherwise serious and urgent; and (ii)the tenant has given the landlord notice of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so. See section 45(1)(d) of the RTA.
The application form said the landlord sought exemplary damages but at the hearing the landlord indicated reimbursement in the sum of the invoice was claimed. The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed but I award compensation to the landlord of $142.50 being reimbursement of the cost incurred by the tenant, but invoiced to the landlord, without the landlord’s approval.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

The landlord seeks exemplary damages from the tenant. Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Exemplary damages are sought in relation to the tenant failing to promptly inform the landlord of the toilet leak.
Section 40(1) (d) states that a tenant must notify the landlord as soon as possible after discovery of any damage to the premises, however failure to do so is not included in Schedule 1 A as an unlawful act. The remedy for any breach is therefore compensatory and not exemplary damages. Compensation has been awarded above with respect to the repairs to the toilet floor and the claim for exemplary damages dismissed.

BOND

The bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately for the amounts ordered.

FILING FEE

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.

SUPPRESSION

Both parties sought name suppression.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded, I make an order for name suppression for the landlord.
Having regards to the interests of the parties and to the public interest I do not make an order for the tenants to have name suppression. See section 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906362 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906362 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

COMPENSATION CLAIM

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

COMPENSATION CLAIM

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

BOND

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions