How much money was awarded in case 4928273?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,920.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtians: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4928273?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4928273?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11160228-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4928273?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,920.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtians: $220.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4928273?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4928273?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11160228-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4928273 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4928273 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4928273 — net $4,127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 October 2024	$7,920.00	Rent arrears to 2 October 2024
Window repairs	$500.00	Window repairs
Replace furnishings: curtians	$220.00	Replace furnishings: curtians
Rubbish removal	$500.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,127.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,127.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details including the property address.

Simon Woodward must pay [The landlord/s] $4,127.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The bond centre is to pay the bond of $5040.00 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 2 December 2024.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears to the 2 October 2024 of $7920.00, glass repairs for two windows of $1196, lock changes of $989.00, curtain replacement $220.00 and rubbish removal of $3220.00, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant accepts the claim for the curtain.

This tenancy is for a large two storied 5-bedroom home on 5 acres of grazing land.

The tenancy began on the 5 March 2024 and was terminated by the Tribunal on the 16 August 2024, following a police raid on the property on the 1 July, the result of which the tenant was charged with serious offences and held in custody. The rent

Despite the landlord obtaining a termination order on the 16 August the landlord is seeking rent to the 2 October, which the landlord says is the day that the tenant moved out and handed back the keys.

The landlord claims that whilst the tenant was in custody she dealt with his friend L who was unable to make arrangements to move the tenants’ belongings and hand back the keys until the 2 October.

The tenant says that L was staying at the property for a while, and he had authorised her to deal with the tenancy. He had instructed her to pay one month’s rent on the 8 July which she did. The tenant said that he had no control over the situation as he was in prison.

I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for rent until the 2 October. The tenant had possession of the property over that time.

The landlord provided rent records prove the amount owing at 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 holes and the rubbish.

The landlord is claiming $3220.00 for rubbish removal. The landlord says that there are three large holes on the property which the tenant dug, which have rubbish in them. The landlord says that it believed that the rubbish is inorganic and therefore needs to be removed. The landlord is concerned about what is buried in the holes, because when the police searched the property they found items of interest that were buried.

The tenant says two of the holes were open on the day of the police raid. One of those holes was simply a hole that the tenant had dug to create a mound of dirt for his children to ride motorbikes on, the other was to bury large trees stumps and the burn pile debris. The tenant says that there is no need to dig up these holes again, as there is no rubbish there and he has remediated the holes (which he has).

The third hole was empty at the time the tenant was arrested. At today’s hearing he conceded that it appeared that inorganic material had been put into the hole, after the raid but before his tenancy ended. The photographs of the hole show tyres and machinery parts in it. Those photographs were taken by the landlord at the end of the tenancy. The tenant’s witness who attended the hearing said that the current tenant was using the pile as a burn pit.

I am not satisfied that it is likely that the two remediated areas where the tenant had previously dug holes need to be dug up and have rubbish removed. There is no evidence to prove that there is rubbish that has been buried in those two holes. There is no evidence which supports that any of the items in those holes are suspicious as the Police saw them when they were at the property on the 1 July, before they were remediated. Police would have been able to check the contents of the burn pile and anything else in the holes at that time.

I am satisfied that the tenant (or his invitees) left rubbish in the hole with the gate across it. The landlord may have to remove that rubbish but has not yet done so.

When the Tribunal awards compensation it is to restore the party to the position it would have been in had the breach not occurred. I consider that it is likely that the landlord will have to remove the rubbish from this hole and pay the costs of dumping it. I award $500 to the landlord as compensation.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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 cracks in the window

I am satisfied that the cracks in the two windows occurred during the tenant’s tenancy. The tenant says the crack in the upstairs bedroom was caused by a bird flying into the window. The tenant accepts that this happened early on in the tenancy, and he did not report the damage to the landlord.

I am satisfied that damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I do not know how the damage occurred but I consider it likely to be careless rather than intentional damage.

The landlord is insured for this damage. The tenant is liable for the costs of the insurance excess or the costs of repair whatever is the lesser. As the insurance excess is the lesser amount, I award that amount. The landlord has told me that each insurance excess is $250.00 it it likely that the insurers would treat each window as a separate insurable event and therefore I award $500.00 to the landlord. The locks

The landlord claims that the tenant broke the locks in the garage and the bedroom and installed a new lock in the garage. I accept that the tenant was responsible for the repair and reinstatement of the locks which were broken or changed during his tenancy.

I am also satisfied that the tenant was liable for the change of the locks to the front and back door. The tenant’s alleged criminal activity at the property was a cause of concern for the landlord. I am satisfied that the tenant was using the property for an unlawful purpose and that as a result of that activity, it was necessary for the landlord to change the locks, even though the keys had been returned. The cost of the lock replacement is proven.

The amounts ordered are proved.

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. Filing fee and Name suppression

The landlord has been mostly successful in their claims and is entitled to name suppression as requested and the filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4928273 — net $4,127.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 2 October 2024	$7,920.00	Rent arrears to 2 October 2024
Window repairs	$500.00	Window repairs
Replace furnishings: curtians	$220.00	Replace furnishings: curtians
Rubbish removal	$500.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,127.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,127.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details including the property address.

Simon Woodward must pay [The landlord/s] $4,127.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The bond centre is to pay the bond of $5040.00 to the landlord immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 2 December 2024.

The tenant accepts the claim for the curtain.

This tenancy is for a large two storied 5-bedroom home on 5 acres of grazing land.

The landlord claims that whilst the tenant was in custody she dealt with his friend L who was unable to make arrangements to move the tenants’ belongings and hand back the keys until the 2 October.

I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for rent until the 2 October. The tenant had possession of the property over that time.

The landlord provided rent records prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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

I am satisfied that the tenant (or his invitees) left rubbish in the hole with the gate across it. The landlord may have to remove that rubbish but has not yet done so.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The amounts ordered are proved.

The landlord has been mostly successful in their claims and is entitled to name suppression as requested and the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4928273 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4928273 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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