What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4964580 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4964580?

Break Lease Fee: $1,213.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $128.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Overpayment (19: $829.29 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $406.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4964580?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4964580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10968756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4964580 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4964580?

Break Lease Fee: $1,213.75 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $128.80 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Overpayment (19: $829.29 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $406.75 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4964580?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4964580?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10968756-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 5, 74 Birkenhead Avenue, Birkenhead, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4964580 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Unit/Flat Flat 5, 74 Birkenhead Avenue, Birkenhead, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4964580 — Property damage | 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 4964580 — net $947.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning- Kitchen cupboards, draws, blinds and vacuum	$128.80		Cleaning- Kitchen cupboards, draws, blinds and vacuum
Break lease fee	$1,213.75		Break lease fee
Repairs: 3 x bi-fold door repairs- bathroom and two	$406.75		Repairs: 3 x bi-fold door repairs- bathroom and two
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent overpayment (19 to 27 June 2024		$829.29	Rent overpayment (19 to 27 June 2024
Total award	$1,776.30	$829.29
Net award	$947.01
Bond	$2,580.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$947.01

Claims and awards for application 4964580 — net $947.01 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning- Kitchen cupboards, draws, blinds and vacuum

Amount: $128.80
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning- Kitchen cupboards, draws, blinds and vacuum

Break lease fee

Amount: $1,213.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Break lease fee

Repairs: 3 x bi-fold door repairs- bathroom and two

Amount: $406.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: 3 x bi-fold door repairs- bathroom and two

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Rent overpayment (19 to 27 June 2024

Amount: $829.29
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenants and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenants] to pay [the landlord] $947.01 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,580.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord]: $947.01 [The tenants]: $1,632.99

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants enter a fixed term lease on 13 October 2023 for a 12-month period due to end on 12October 2024.
The tenants had a job offer in Wellington and applied to end their fixed term tenancy early, on 18 June 2024.
The landlord sent a letter to the tenants on 22 May 2024 that says: “Thank you for advising us, that you will be vacating the above property when your tenancy expires on 18/06/2024. We will begin advertising the property for new tenants, and with prior consent, our agent may enter the premises for the purposes of showing the property to prospective tenants. This consent may not be unreasonably withheld as per the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 - Section 3 (3a). You are liable to pay rent until the above date. At the time of printing this letter your rent is paid to 23/05/2024. We have attached your tenant ledger which shows all of your rental payments to date. Rent payable up to and including your vacate date is $2395.71 and this needs to be paid by 18/06/2024. Please not this final sum and date payable is subject to change as per the nature of a lease break. We will contact you closer to your vacate date to arrange a suitable time to carry out the final bond inspection. The bond inspection can only be carried out once you have cleaned and vacated the property. We have enclosed a guide that can be used for the final inspection. It clearly defines areas that have been the cause of delays in bond refunds in the past. By attending to all the items on the list you will ensure that your bond is refunded in full with minimum delay. Please Remember to cancel your Automatic Payment and re-direct your mail. Make a note to remind yourself to take your final power reading on the day that you vacate. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns”.
The tenants took this letter to confirm that their preferred move out date of 18 June 2024 had been accepted, that they were liable for rent to that lease expiry date and had to have their rent paid up to the confirmed lease expiry date.
The landlord argues that although the letter clearly states the lease expires on 18 June 2024 and the tenants are liable to pay rent until the expiry date, the sentence “Please not this final sum and date payable is subject to change as per the nature of a lease break” informs the tenants they are still responsible for the rent until a new tenant moves into the property. The tenants argue that this term is not sufficiently clear to a lay person and that the landlord did not explain what that meant to the tenants. Further, the tenants say: a. They relied on the landlord’s 22 May 2024 letter, confirming their tenancy ended on 18 June 2024; b. The first they knew that the landlord did not intend to keep its promise to end the tenancy on 18 June 2024, was when the landlord issued them with a 14-day notice for rent arrears on 1 July 2024; c. They would not have agreed to move out on 18 June 2024 if they had known they would continue to be held liable for rent until a new tenant moved into the premise, as they could not afford to pay rent on two properties for an unknown period; and d. The landlord should be estopped from holding them liable for rent until 28 June 2024 when they had given the tenant written confirmation that their “tenancy expires on 18/06/2024” and they “are liable to pay rent until the above date”.
I am satisfied that the tenants relied on the end of tenancy date in the landlord’s 22 May 2024 letter, to their detriment, and by the time they were made aware of the property manager’s error in this letter, they had moved to Wellington and were not in a position to pay double rent from 19 to 10 July 2024. Under these circumstances I find the landlord should be estopped from claiming rent beyond 18 June 2924. It would not be fair, just or reasonable for the landlord to be allowed to resile from a written confirmation the tenancy expired on 18 June 2024.
I find the tenancy ended on 18 June 2024. The landlord provided rent records that prove the tenants paid rent to 27 June 2024 and as such have overpaid rent in the amount of $829.29. This amount is reimbursed to the tenants.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says that the tenants did not leave the kitchen cupboards, a kitchen drawer, and the kitchen blind reasonably clean and tidy and did not vacuum out the heat pump filters, as required under the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord also says that the lawns required mowing when the undertook the exit inspection on 9 July 2024 and the carpets needed cleaning as the carpet smelt of dog and there was dog hair woven into the carpet.
The tenants say the owners had two dogs living in the premise before they rented it out and the carpets smelt of dog and had dog hair woven into it when their tenancy commenced. They say there were also other repair and maintenance issues the landlord had not addressed, and they addressed these themselves at their own cost. Further, they proved they mowed the lawns the day they left the premise and say they should not be held liable for having to mow it again almost three weeks after their tenancy had been confirmed as ended.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.
The tenants provided a video of the day they had finished cleaning after they had moved all their belongings out of the premise. They say this video shows the premise was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state. Neither I nor the landlord have received that evidence despite the tenants proving they filed it in the Tribunal. This was a video hearing and it was hard for the tenants to show the video to the parties remotely. I accept that they have the video and that it shows the premise was in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The female tenant’s father attended the hearing and gave evidence that the male tenant’s parents had mowed the lawn and cleaned the premise the day the tenant’s moved out and that the property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord produced photographs that prove there were some oats left in some draws and one cupboard was not wiped out, the kitchen blind needed cleaning as it was dusty, and the heat pump filters required a clean.
I am satisfied that the $128.80 the landlord paid to have this cleaning done, and to dispose of some pots and pans the tenants left behind and that these costs should be borne by the tenants. The amounts awarded are proven.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for carpet cleaning and lawn mowing costs are dismissed for lack of evidence proving its claims, and because the tenants have provided evidence which disproves liability for these costs. Based on the evidence provided, I find the premise was at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy” (except the heat pump filter, kitchen cupboards, draw and blind) when they vacated on the tenancy expiry date. I also find the tenants have proven the carpet was in no better condition when their tenancy commenced than when they returned possession of the premise to the landlord.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 tenants accepted the damage to three bi-fold doors in the bathroom and two of the bedrooms was caused during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms the Tribunal must reimburse the filing fee to any applicant that has been wholly or substantially successful in its claims.
Because [the applicant] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details is ordered.
The tenants made an application during the hearing for their names and identifying details to be suppressed.
I am satisfied that the public interest in this matter does not outweigh the significant duress publishing the tenants’ names could result in when they apply for future tenancies. I therefore used my discretion to grant the tenants suppression of their names and identifying details.
Non-publication of the tenants’ names and identifying details is ordered.

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 4964580 — net $947.01 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning- Kitchen cupboards, draws, blinds and vacuum	$128.80		Cleaning- Kitchen cupboards, draws, blinds and vacuum
Break lease fee	$1,213.75		Break lease fee
Repairs: 3 x bi-fold door repairs- bathroom and two	$406.75		Repairs: 3 x bi-fold door repairs- bathroom and two
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Rent overpayment (19 to 27 June 2024		$829.29	Rent overpayment (19 to 27 June 2024
Total award	$1,776.30	$829.29
Net award	$947.01
Bond	$2,580.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$947.01

Claims and awards for application 4964580 — net $947.01 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning- Kitchen cupboards, draws, blinds and vacuum

Amount: $128.80
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning- Kitchen cupboards, draws, blinds and vacuum

Break lease fee

Amount: $1,213.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Break lease fee

Repairs: 3 x bi-fold door repairs- bathroom and two

Amount: $406.75
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: 3 x bi-fold door repairs- bathroom and two

Filing fee reimbursement

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

Rent overpayment (19 to 27 June 2024

Amount: $829.29
Awarded to: Tenant
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenants and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The tenants] to pay [the landlord] $947.01 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,580.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord]: $947.01 [The tenants]: $1,632.99

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenants enter a fixed term lease on 13 October 2023 for a 12-month period due to end on 12October 2024.
The tenants had a job offer in Wellington and applied to end their fixed term tenancy early, on 18 June 2024.
The landlord sent a letter to the tenants on 22 May 2024 that says: “Thank you for advising us, that you will be vacating the above property when your tenancy expires on 18/06/2024. We will begin advertising the property for new tenants, and with prior consent, our agent may enter the premises for the purposes of showing the property to prospective tenants. This consent may not be unreasonably withheld as per the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 - Section 3 (3a). You are liable to pay rent until the above date. At the time of printing this letter your rent is paid to 23/05/2024. We have attached your tenant ledger which shows all of your rental payments to date. Rent payable up to and including your vacate date is $2395.71 and this needs to be paid by 18/06/2024. Please not this final sum and date payable is subject to change as per the nature of a lease break. We will contact you closer to your vacate date to arrange a suitable time to carry out the final bond inspection. The bond inspection can only be carried out once you have cleaned and vacated the property. We have enclosed a guide that can be used for the final inspection. It clearly defines areas that have been the cause of delays in bond refunds in the past. By attending to all the items on the list you will ensure that your bond is refunded in full with minimum delay. Please Remember to cancel your Automatic Payment and re-direct your mail. Make a note to remind yourself to take your final power reading on the day that you vacate. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or concerns”.
The tenants took this letter to confirm that their preferred move out date of 18 June 2024 had been accepted, that they were liable for rent to that lease expiry date and had to have their rent paid up to the confirmed lease expiry date.
The landlord argues that although the letter clearly states the lease expires on 18 June 2024 and the tenants are liable to pay rent until the expiry date, the sentence “Please not this final sum and date payable is subject to change as per the nature of a lease break” informs the tenants they are still responsible for the rent until a new tenant moves into the property. The tenants argue that this term is not sufficiently clear to a lay person and that the landlord did not explain what that meant to the tenants. Further, the tenants say: a. They relied on the landlord’s 22 May 2024 letter, confirming their tenancy ended on 18 June 2024; b. The first they knew that the landlord did not intend to keep its promise to end the tenancy on 18 June 2024, was when the landlord issued them with a 14-day notice for rent arrears on 1 July 2024; c. They would not have agreed to move out on 18 June 2024 if they had known they would continue to be held liable for rent until a new tenant moved into the premise, as they could not afford to pay rent on two properties for an unknown period; and d. The landlord should be estopped from holding them liable for rent until 28 June 2024 when they had given the tenant written confirmation that their “tenancy expires on 18/06/2024” and they “are liable to pay rent until the above date”.
I am satisfied that the tenants relied on the end of tenancy date in the landlord’s 22 May 2024 letter, to their detriment, and by the time they were made aware of the property manager’s error in this letter, they had moved to Wellington and were not in a position to pay double rent from 19 to 10 July 2024. Under these circumstances I find the landlord should be estopped from claiming rent beyond 18 June 2924. It would not be fair, just or reasonable for the landlord to be allowed to resile from a written confirmation the tenancy expired on 18 June 2024.
I find the tenancy ended on 18 June 2024. The landlord provided rent records that prove the tenants paid rent to 27 June 2024 and as such have overpaid rent in the amount of $829.29. This amount is reimbursed to the tenants.

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 tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord says that the tenants did not leave the kitchen cupboards, a kitchen drawer, and the kitchen blind reasonably clean and tidy and did not vacuum out the heat pump filters, as required under the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord also says that the lawns required mowing when the undertook the exit inspection on 9 July 2024 and the carpets needed cleaning as the carpet smelt of dog and there was dog hair woven into the carpet.
The tenants say the owners had two dogs living in the premise before they rented it out and the carpets smelt of dog and had dog hair woven into it when their tenancy commenced. They say there were also other repair and maintenance issues the landlord had not addressed, and they addressed these themselves at their own cost. Further, they proved they mowed the lawns the day they left the premise and say they should not be held liable for having to mow it again almost three weeks after their tenancy had been confirmed as ended.
Section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the RTA confirms that on termination of the tenancy, the tenant must “leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition”. This provision does not impose an absolute standard of responsibility. The obligation is not to leave the premises in an immaculate standard of cleanliness and tidiness, nor does it mean that it will necessarily be up to the standard that a landlord might consider for a new tenant, for sale, or for the owner to re-occupy 1 : The standard will vary according to the age and condition of the premises and, in particular, the condition that they were in at the start of the tenancy 2 :The test is objective and not based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant.
In Housing New Zealand Ltd v Holloway Auckland TT 215/93, 8 February 1993 the Tribunal stated: “‘Reasonably tidy’ grounds are not perfect ‘prizewinning’ grounds, but neither [are they] grounds that suggest a property is unoccupied, or constitute a health hazard (vermin) or fire risk. Rather [it is] something in between; grounds maintained to a standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider ‘reasonably tidy’.”
Equally, the inside of a premise does not have to be left at hotel or motel standard, but at a standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably clean and tidy”. 1 Face Property Management Ltd v Mike Bourne Contracting Ltd Christchurch TT 12/00532/CH, 24 August 2012. 2 Westwood v Western [1994] DCR 759.
The tenants provided a video of the day they had finished cleaning after they had moved all their belongings out of the premise. They say this video shows the premise was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state. Neither I nor the landlord have received that evidence despite the tenants proving they filed it in the Tribunal. This was a video hearing and it was hard for the tenants to show the video to the parties remotely. I accept that they have the video and that it shows the premise was in a reasonably clean and tidy state. The female tenant’s father attended the hearing and gave evidence that the male tenant’s parents had mowed the lawn and cleaned the premise the day the tenant’s moved out and that the property was left in a reasonably clean and tidy state.
The landlord produced photographs that prove there were some oats left in some draws and one cupboard was not wiped out, the kitchen blind needed cleaning as it was dusty, and the heat pump filters required a clean.
I am satisfied that the $128.80 the landlord paid to have this cleaning done, and to dispose of some pots and pans the tenants left behind and that these costs should be borne by the tenants. The amounts awarded are proven.
The landlord’s claim for compensation for carpet cleaning and lawn mowing costs are dismissed for lack of evidence proving its claims, and because the tenants have provided evidence which disproves liability for these costs. Based on the evidence provided, I find the premise was at standard that an average, reasonable bystander would consider “reasonably tidy” (except the heat pump filter, kitchen cupboards, draw and blind) when they vacated on the tenancy expiry date. I also find the tenants have proven the carpet was in no better condition when their tenancy commenced than when they returned possession of the premise to the landlord.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 tenants accepted the damage to three bi-fold doors in the bathroom and two of the bedrooms was caused during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms the Tribunal must reimburse the filing fee to any applicant that has been wholly or substantially successful in its claims.
Because [the applicant] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of its name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details is ordered.
The tenants made an application during the hearing for their names and identifying details to be suppressed.
I am satisfied that the public interest in this matter does not outweigh the significant duress publishing the tenants’ names could result in when they apply for future tenancies. I therefore used my discretion to grant the tenants suppression of their names and identifying details.
Non-publication of the tenants’ names and identifying details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4964580 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 74 Birkenhead Avenue, Birkenhead,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4964580 — Property damage at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 74 Birkenhead Avenue, Birkenhead,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions