What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4915533 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Nicholas Schrodski and Katie McKendry at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4915533?

August 2024: $4,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $131.64 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $420.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4915533?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4915533?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10685231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4915533 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Nicholas Schrodski and Katie McKendry at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4915533?

August 2024: $4,200.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $131.64 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $420.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4915533?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4915533?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10685231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4915533 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4915533 — net $3,872.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
August 2024	$4,200.00	August 2024
Window repairs	$131.64	Window repairs
Replacement set of drawers	$420.00	Replacement set of drawers
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,872.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,872.08

Order

The tenancy of Nicholas Schrodski and Katie McKendry at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at
59pm on Sunday 11 August 2024.
The monetary claim against Katie McKendry is dismissed.
The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Nicholas Schrodski and Katie McKendry must pay [The landlord/s] $3,872.08 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,772.08 Bond$900.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,872.08

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated under section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

How much was owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which showed the amount owing at 11 August 2024, as $9,700.00 (being $550.00 per week from 11 March 2024).
This amount was based on a purported Variation document amending the tenancy, from 11 March 2024, to include Ms McKendry as a tenant at an additional rent of $200 per week and increasing Mr Schrodski’s rent to $350 per week.
The landlord provided additional information to support the claim for arrears. This included a tenancy agreement dated 24 May 2023 between the landlord and Mr Schrodski, two versions of a “Variation of Tenancy” document, a letter to WINZ dated 11 March 2024 in relation to rent, and a rent increase notice dated 25 March 2024 addressed to Mr Schrodski.
The tenancy agreement dated 24 May 2023 lists Mr Schrodski as the only tenant and specifies that the tenancy is a “single person’s tenancy”. The rent is $300.00 per week.
Two versions of the “Variation of Tenancy” document were provided to the Tribunal.
The printed information is identical in each version, but the handwritten information is not identical.
In one version the tenants’ signatures are undated. In the other, the tenants’ signatures are dated 13 June 2024 (one day prior to the landlord’s application being filed with this Tribunal).
The date of the landlord’s signature is written differently as are the tenant’s signatures and handwritten email address for Ms McKendry at the bottom of the page also differs. They are different documents and have been signed at different times.
The typed document purports to vary the existing tenancy of Mr Schrodski by adding Ms McKendry as a tenant and increasing the rent to $350.00 for Mr Schrodski and $200.00 for Ms McKendry as from 11 March 2024. This would suggest that the rent from 11 March 2024 was increased to $550.00 and supports the amount claimed in the rent summary.
Also supporting this rent increase from 11 March 2024 is a letter from the landlord to WINZ on that date informing that agency of the new tenancy agreement. Although this letter says that the rent is $275.00 per tenant (including $15.00 for power, $5.00 for gas, and $5.00 for internet).
The landlord also provided a rent increase letter addressed to Mr Schrodski and dated 25 March 2024 purporting to increase his rent from $300.00 per week to $350.00 per week from 23 May 2024 (being an allowed annual rent increase with an appropriate 60 days’ notice).
There is no reference in this letter to the “Variation of Tenancy” document (purportedly drafted and signed by the landlord on or around 11 March 2024) and it directly contradicts that document (which recorded Mr Schrodski’s rent as being $350.00 from 11 March 2024 as claimed in this application).
Despite the date at the top of this letter being 25 March 2024, it was clearly composed well after this as it states in the final paragraph, “You already owe $3,450.00 with this weeks’ rent from 22 nd to 28 th May 2024.”
This amount does not tally with the rent summary provided to the Tribunal.
Additionally, it cannot be a legitimate rent increase notice if it was composed after 22 May 2024, as appears to be the case, as the purported increase date (23 May 2024) is only one day ahead rather than the required 60 days.
Although the tenants have not appeared, the landlord still has the obligation to prove the amount owning on the balance of probabilities. Given the discrepancies in the documents provided, I cannot be satisfied that these tenants are liable for the full amount of rent claimed.
Given the contradictions within and between these documents, I do not consider that I have sufficient evidence to create liability for arrears on Ms McKendry’s behalf.
In terms of rent arrears, I consider it proved that Mr Schrodski is liable in the sum of $300.00 per week from 11 March 2024 to the termination date (as I consider the rent increase notice invalid for insufficient notice).
I calculate this amount as $6,600.00 (being $300 per week for 22 weeks). The rent summary shows rent paid of $2,400.00 leaving a balance of $4,200.00 outstanding.
That amount is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for compensation?

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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) under section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage under section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.
During the tenancy a window was broken at the property and the landlord provided an invoice in the sum of $131.64 to repair the same.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claimed $420.00 to replace a set of drawers damaged or destroyed during the tenancy. The landlord provided evidence to show that the drawers were present at the beginning of the tenancy and an invoice to confirm purchase of the replacement item.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also claimed compensation for key replacement being $60.00.
No evidence was provided to show that any payment was made in relation to this claim. The claim is not proven and is dismissed.
The landlord claimed $90.00 for labour and parts in relation to replacement of a lock mechanism. The landlord conceded that she was unsure as to whether this was damaged by the tenant or fair wear and tear. Given those circumstances, I am unable to award compensation in this matter and this claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004 under section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00 under section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord gave evidence that she had visited the property in March 2024 and had found the smoke alarm was not in place. She had questioned the tenant who said it had fallen down.
She gave further evidence that she could smell cigarette smoke at the property and thought the alarm had been removed intentionally.
The landlord said that when she visited the property again in June the alarm had not been reinstated.
No photographs or other documentary evidence (such as a 14-day notice) were provided by the landlord.
Although the Tribunal shares the landlord’s concern if the smoke alarm was not attached as required, there is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to find that the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
Therefore, no exemplary damages can be awarded in this case. Filing fee and suppression
As the landlord has been partly successful with her claim, I order suppression of her name and identifying details.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4915533 — net $3,872.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
August 2024	$4,200.00	August 2024
Window repairs	$131.64	Window repairs
Replacement set of drawers	$420.00	Replacement set of drawers
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,872.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,872.08

Order

The tenancy of Nicholas Schrodski and Katie McKendry at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at
59pm on Sunday 11 August 2024.
The monetary claim against Katie McKendry is dismissed.
The claim for exemplary damages is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $900.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Nicholas Schrodski and Katie McKendry must pay [The landlord/s] $3,872.08 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
00 Filing fee reimbursement$20.44 Total award$4,772.08 Bond$900.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$3,872.08

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated under section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).

How much was owed for rent?

The landlord provided rent records which showed the amount owing at 11 August 2024, as $9,700.00 (being $550.00 per week from 11 March 2024).
This amount was based on a purported Variation document amending the tenancy, from 11 March 2024, to include Ms McKendry as a tenant at an additional rent of $200 per week and increasing Mr Schrodski’s rent to $350 per week.
The landlord provided additional information to support the claim for arrears. This included a tenancy agreement dated 24 May 2023 between the landlord and Mr Schrodski, two versions of a “Variation of Tenancy” document, a letter to WINZ dated 11 March 2024 in relation to rent, and a rent increase notice dated 25 March 2024 addressed to Mr Schrodski.
The tenancy agreement dated 24 May 2023 lists Mr Schrodski as the only tenant and specifies that the tenancy is a “single person’s tenancy”. The rent is $300.00 per week.
Two versions of the “Variation of Tenancy” document were provided to the Tribunal.
The printed information is identical in each version, but the handwritten information is not identical.
In one version the tenants’ signatures are undated. In the other, the tenants’ signatures are dated 13 June 2024 (one day prior to the landlord’s application being filed with this Tribunal).
The date of the landlord’s signature is written differently as are the tenant’s signatures and handwritten email address for Ms McKendry at the bottom of the page also differs. They are different documents and have been signed at different times.
The typed document purports to vary the existing tenancy of Mr Schrodski by adding Ms McKendry as a tenant and increasing the rent to $350.00 for Mr Schrodski and $200.00 for Ms McKendry as from 11 March 2024. This would suggest that the rent from 11 March 2024 was increased to $550.00 and supports the amount claimed in the rent summary.
Also supporting this rent increase from 11 March 2024 is a letter from the landlord to WINZ on that date informing that agency of the new tenancy agreement. Although this letter says that the rent is $275.00 per tenant (including $15.00 for power, $5.00 for gas, and $5.00 for internet).
The landlord also provided a rent increase letter addressed to Mr Schrodski and dated 25 March 2024 purporting to increase his rent from $300.00 per week to $350.00 per week from 23 May 2024 (being an allowed annual rent increase with an appropriate 60 days’ notice).
There is no reference in this letter to the “Variation of Tenancy” document (purportedly drafted and signed by the landlord on or around 11 March 2024) and it directly contradicts that document (which recorded Mr Schrodski’s rent as being $350.00 from 11 March 2024 as claimed in this application).
Despite the date at the top of this letter being 25 March 2024, it was clearly composed well after this as it states in the final paragraph, “You already owe $3,450.00 with this weeks’ rent from 22 nd to 28 th May 2024.”
This amount does not tally with the rent summary provided to the Tribunal.
Additionally, it cannot be a legitimate rent increase notice if it was composed after 22 May 2024, as appears to be the case, as the purported increase date (23 May 2024) is only one day ahead rather than the required 60 days.
Although the tenants have not appeared, the landlord still has the obligation to prove the amount owning on the balance of probabilities. Given the discrepancies in the documents provided, I cannot be satisfied that these tenants are liable for the full amount of rent claimed.
Given the contradictions within and between these documents, I do not consider that I have sufficient evidence to create liability for arrears on Ms McKendry’s behalf.
In terms of rent arrears, I consider it proved that Mr Schrodski is liable in the sum of $300.00 per week from 11 March 2024 to the termination date (as I consider the rent increase notice invalid for insufficient notice).
I calculate this amount as $6,600.00 (being $300 per week for 22 weeks). The rent summary shows rent paid of $2,400.00 leaving a balance of $4,200.00 outstanding.
That amount is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for compensation?

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 under sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Act.
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) under section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage under section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
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 under section 49B(1) of the Act.
During the tenancy a window was broken at the property and the landlord provided an invoice in the sum of $131.64 to repair the same.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord claimed $420.00 to replace a set of drawers damaged or destroyed during the tenancy. The landlord provided evidence to show that the drawers were present at the beginning of the tenancy and an invoice to confirm purchase of the replacement item.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord also claimed compensation for key replacement being $60.00.
No evidence was provided to show that any payment was made in relation to this claim. The claim is not proven and is dismissed.
The landlord claimed $90.00 for labour and parts in relation to replacement of a lock mechanism. The landlord conceded that she was unsure as to whether this was damaged by the tenant or fair wear and tear. Given those circumstances, I am unable to award compensation in this matter and this claim is dismissed. Exemplary damages
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004 under section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00 under section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A of the Act.
The landlord gave evidence that she had visited the property in March 2024 and had found the smoke alarm was not in place. She had questioned the tenant who said it had fallen down.
She gave further evidence that she could smell cigarette smoke at the property and thought the alarm had been removed intentionally.
The landlord said that when she visited the property again in June the alarm had not been reinstated.
No photographs or other documentary evidence (such as a 14-day notice) were provided by the landlord.
Although the Tribunal shares the landlord’s concern if the smoke alarm was not attached as required, there is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to find that the tenant has committed an unlawful act.
Therefore, no exemplary damages can be awarded in this case. Filing fee and suppression
As the landlord has been partly successful with her claim, I order suppression of her name and identifying details.
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4915533 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4915533 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much was owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much was owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for compensation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions