What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5005148 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 5005148?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5005148?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5005148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11403433-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5005148 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 5005148?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5005148?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5005148?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11403433-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5005148 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.
The law relating to the issues before the Tribunal is contained in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, 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 more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. This is significant in this hearing as the parties may find that a claim is not accepted, not because of any doubts about their voracity, but because they have failed to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case to the standard required. In this matter the property manager appearing for the landlord is also at a disadvantage, not having been appointed as the manager until recently.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).

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.
The facts of the matter are not in dispute.
The owner had entered into an agreement for sale and purchase of the premises.
The vendor agent and the purchaser wished to carry out a pre purchase inspection of the premises. It was agreed with the tenant that the inspection would be carried out at 4pm on Saturday 10 August 2024.
Whilst the vendor agent had a key to the premises, it often didn’t work. The vendor agent and the tenant agreed that the tenant would leave the premises unlocked so that the agent and the purchaser could gain entry.
The tenant left the house at 3.45 pm. In the 15 minutes between the tenant leaving the premises and the agent arriving, unknown people have entered the house and caused substantial damage. There was no suggestion that this damage was caused by the tenant or anyone at the premises with the tenant’s permission.
The owner negotiated a settlement with their purchaser by discounting the purchase price by $1,000.00.
Whilst no documentary evidence was provided, the landlord said that the owner had obtained a quote to repair the damage of $750.00. The landlord is insured. The policy of insurance carries an excess of $500.00.
It is clear that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.
Has the tenant proven that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage? Were there others at the premises with the permission of the tenant who have caused the damage?
The back door was left unlocked when the tenant left the premises. It was left unlocked at the request of the owner’s agent. The damage occurred during the brief period between the tenant leaving the premises and the agent arriving. In those circumstances, I find that the tenant has proven that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage to occur. The tenant acted on the instructions of the vendor’s agent. The tenant has not permitted the perpetrators of the damage to enter onto the premises. The application is accordingly dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and the landlord application for name suppression is dismissed. The tenant has been wholly successful in this hearing and suppression of the tenant name and details is ordered.

Reasons

Both parties attended this video hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation and refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy.

The law relating to the issues before the Tribunal is contained in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.

The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, 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 more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. This is significant in this hearing as the parties may find that a claim is not accepted, not because of any doubts about their voracity, but because they have failed to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case to the standard required. In this matter the property manager appearing for the landlord is also at a disadvantage, not having been appointed as the manager until recently.

As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like 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.” (the emphasis is mine).

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.

The facts of the matter are not in dispute.

The owner had entered into an agreement for sale and purchase of the premises.

The vendor agent and the purchaser wished to carry out a pre purchase inspection of the premises. It was agreed with the tenant that the inspection would be carried out at 4pm on Saturday 10 August 2024.

Whilst the vendor agent had a key to the premises, it often didn’t work. The vendor agent and the tenant agreed that the tenant would leave the premises unlocked so that the agent and the purchaser could gain entry.

The tenant left the house at 3.45 pm. In the 15 minutes between the tenant leaving the premises and the agent arriving, unknown people have entered the house and caused substantial damage. There was no suggestion that this damage was caused by the tenant or anyone at the premises with the tenant’s permission.

The owner negotiated a settlement with their purchaser by discounting the purchase price by $1,000.00.

Whilst no documentary evidence was provided, the landlord said that the owner had obtained a quote to repair the damage of $750.00. The landlord is insured. The policy of insurance carries an excess of $500.00.

It is clear that the damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear.

Has the tenant proven that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage? Were there others at the premises with the permission of the tenant who have caused the damage?

The back door was left unlocked when the tenant left the premises. It was left unlocked at the request of the owner’s agent. The damage occurred during the brief period between the tenant leaving the premises and the agent arriving. In those circumstances, I find that the tenant has proven that they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage to occur. The tenant acted on the instructions of the vendor’s agent. The tenant has not permitted the perpetrators of the damage to enter onto the premises. The application is accordingly dismissed.

Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful and the landlord application for name suppression is dismissed. The tenant has been wholly successful in this hearing and suppression of the tenant name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5005148 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5005148 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions