What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4926556 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4926556?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4926556?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4926556?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10761960-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4926556 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4926556?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4926556?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4926556?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10761960-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4926556 — 14-day notice

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The landlord claims the cost of repairing the garage door at the premises.
The tenancy is ongoing, and the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage was caused intentionally but not by the tenants.
The issue is whether the tenants are responsible for the actions of the person who caused the damage.
Section 41 of the Residential Tenancies act 1986 (the Act) states; - Tenant’s responsibility for actions of others (1) The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (2) Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises.
The tenants had a lodger with them in the premises. They decided that they no longer wanted him there and asked him to leave. He was slow to do so, and they served him with 14 days written notice to leave. He refused to leave and, after taking some advice, including from the Police, they served him with a trespass notice. He still refused to leave.
The tenants called the Police who came to the premises. While they were downstairs talking to the tenants, the lodger leapt out of his upstairs bedroom window. That did not end well when he fell from a lower roof onto the ground and broke his leg. He damaged guttering and fascia in the process.
The Police kindly drove him to the hospital where he was treated and discharged later that day. He then returned to the premises and set about damaging items in the garden and the garage door. One can only speculate about why he did that. He may have been upset about being evicted from the premises and possibly also about his broken leg.
The tenants repaired the damaged guttering, fascia and other items in the garden at some cost to them. They declined the landlord’s request to pay the $1,250 insurance excess for the garage door damage on the ground that they were not responsible for the lodger’s actions.
I agree with the tenants. The tenants had done everything they reasonably could to eject the lodger from the premises. Strictly, he ejected himself, but he would not have done so without the action that the tenants took to remove him from the premises. He then returned to the premises and caused the damage. He was not there with the tenants’ permission. On the contrary, he was there in breach of the trespass notice. For the purposes of the Act, it was no different from a stranger coming to the premises, except that, unlike most strangers, he came with the intention of damaging the premises.
In these circumstances, the tenants are not responsible for his actions. The landlords must look to him for compensation.
The tenants asked about the money they have spent on repairing the other items that the lodger damaged. They had not filed an application and so I could not consider a claim from them to be reimbursed.
What is clear is that the tenants were not liable to repair the other damage. It is no different from the garage door damage. It would not be proper for me to express a view on whether the tenants would succeed if they applied to be reimbursed by the landlord for the costs they incurred. But because the tenants were not responsible for the damage, the right thing for the landlord to do, in my view, is to reimburse them.
I have given the tenants name suppression because they have been wholly successful in defending this claim.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The landlord claims the cost of repairing the garage door at the premises.
The tenancy is ongoing, and the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The damage was caused intentionally but not by the tenants.
The issue is whether the tenants are responsible for the actions of the person who caused the damage.
Section 41 of the Residential Tenancies act 1986 (the Act) states; - Tenant’s responsibility for actions of others (1) The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (2) Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises.
The tenants had a lodger with them in the premises. They decided that they no longer wanted him there and asked him to leave. He was slow to do so, and they served him with 14 days written notice to leave. He refused to leave and, after taking some advice, including from the Police, they served him with a trespass notice. He still refused to leave.
The tenants called the Police who came to the premises. While they were downstairs talking to the tenants, the lodger leapt out of his upstairs bedroom window. That did not end well when he fell from a lower roof onto the ground and broke his leg. He damaged guttering and fascia in the process.
The Police kindly drove him to the hospital where he was treated and discharged later that day. He then returned to the premises and set about damaging items in the garden and the garage door. One can only speculate about why he did that. He may have been upset about being evicted from the premises and possibly also about his broken leg.
The tenants repaired the damaged guttering, fascia and other items in the garden at some cost to them. They declined the landlord’s request to pay the $1,250 insurance excess for the garage door damage on the ground that they were not responsible for the lodger’s actions.
I agree with the tenants. The tenants had done everything they reasonably could to eject the lodger from the premises. Strictly, he ejected himself, but he would not have done so without the action that the tenants took to remove him from the premises. He then returned to the premises and caused the damage. He was not there with the tenants’ permission. On the contrary, he was there in breach of the trespass notice. For the purposes of the Act, it was no different from a stranger coming to the premises, except that, unlike most strangers, he came with the intention of damaging the premises.
In these circumstances, the tenants are not responsible for his actions. The landlords must look to him for compensation.
The tenants asked about the money they have spent on repairing the other items that the lodger damaged. They had not filed an application and so I could not consider a claim from them to be reimbursed.
What is clear is that the tenants were not liable to repair the other damage. It is no different from the garage door damage. It would not be proper for me to express a view on whether the tenants would succeed if they applied to be reimbursed by the landlord for the costs they incurred. But because the tenants were not responsible for the damage, the right thing for the landlord to do, in my view, is to reimburse them.
I have given the tenants name suppression because they have been wholly successful in defending this claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4926556 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4926556 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions