What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5020868 about?

The tribunal order states: Errol Tarawa is to pay the landlord $889.91 from the bond as shown in table

How much money was awarded in case 5020868?

Cleaning: $453.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $409.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5020868?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5020868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11015570-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5020868 about?

The tribunal order states: Errol Tarawa is to pay the landlord $889.91 from the bond as shown in table

How much money was awarded in case 5020868?

Cleaning: $453.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $409.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5020868?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5020868?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11015570-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5020868 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5020868 — net $889.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$409.91	Window repairs
Repairs/clean up	$453.00	Repairs/clean up
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$889.91
Bond	$1,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$889.91

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. An email address was provided as an address for service and used in the service pre-hearing.

The service requirements of s 91A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) had not been met as the application was lodged more than two months after the tenancy ended. Having heard from the landlord on the subsequent interactions I am satisfied reasonable efforts have been made and that the tenant should be aware of the landlord’s claims against the bond (as advised by telephone after the tenancy). I therefore waived service requirements per s 91B RTA and proceeded.

The landlord has applied for compensation via the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the boarding house tenancy.

The tenancy ended on 18 July 2024. This was via an immediate landlord termination for tenant damage and disruption (see s 66U(1)(a) RTA), such that police attended and removed the tenant at that time.

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 goods and rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 66M(b) to (e) RTA.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all goods and rubbish.

The landlord claimed $85.00 for the cost of a locksmith callout to recode the digital lock at the main door of the boarding house. The room had a key lock. As stated at the hearing, the recoding of the common code for access (the one code was shared with all tenants), while done here for the reassurance of other tenants, should be a simple function that a manager should be able to do quickly and routinely for a number of reasons. I do not consider it reasonable for the tenant to incur the cost here and dismiss that claim.

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 49B, 66K(2)(a), and 66L 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Broken window. A broken window required temporary securing and then replacement. The landlord provided photos of the broken window and an invoice for $409.91. The full cost is accepted and awarded. b. Wardrobe. The wardrobe had a hole in that that required repair. It was also displaced from the runners and required reinstalling. Photos and an invoice for $453.00 were provided. The invoice also provided for the removal of broken glass, debris and discarded items. The full cost is established, proven as a tenant liability, and awarded.

The damage was more than likely intentional. The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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.

Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5020868 — net $889.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$409.91	Window repairs
Repairs/clean up	$453.00	Repairs/clean up
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$889.91
Bond	$1,080.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$889.91

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. An email address was provided as an address for service and used in the service pre-hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation via the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the boarding house tenancy.

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

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all goods and rubbish.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The damage was more than likely intentional. The amounts ordered are proved. Filing fee

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression

The landlord requested suppression in its application. As it has been substantially successful, suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5020868 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5020868 — Cleanliness

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