What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5026948 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 5026948?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,340.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5026948?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5026948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11333694-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5026948 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 5026948?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,340.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5026948?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5026948?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11333694-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5026948 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5026948 — net $2,367.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28.4.2024	$2,340.00	Rent arrears to 28.4.2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,367.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,367.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Service requirements on the tenant are dispensed with and the application is deemed to have been served on the tenant, pursuant to section 91B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Vetekina Finau is to pay [The landlord/s] $2,367.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $2,367.00 from the bond of $$2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond of $153.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 384, was called twice, without response.
At the start of the hearing, [The landlord’s representative] discussed the efforts the landlord had made to locate the tenant. [The landlord’s representative] said the tenant had abandoned the tenancy, that the landlord first became aware that the tenant had abandoned the property on 25 April 2024 when they conducted a routine inspection, and that they then made efforts to find the tenant. [The landlord’s representative] said they contacted the tenant’s former partner, who had lived at the property but had left before the tenant. [The landlord’s representative] indicated the former partner gave them an address for the tenant but when they went to this address, the tenant did not live there. They believe they were given a fake address by the tenant’s former partner. [The landlord’s representative] said they have tried to contact the tenant’s mother, who is her emergency contact in the Tenancy Agreement, and have called the tenant’s phone number and have emailed two email addresses they have for the tenant, all without any success.
The landlord has not met the service requirements set out in section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), for service of an application filed more than 2 months after the termination of the tenancy, as the application was not served personally on the tenant, nor was it posted to an address the tenant supplied to the landlord within the 2 months before the application, nor was it delivered to the tenant’s current address, nor was it served on a solicitor or other duly authorised representative for the tenant.
However, [The landlord’s representative] asked that an order be made dispensing with service pursuant to section 91B(2)c) RTA. I am satisfied, based on [The landlord’s representative]’s evidence, that the landlord made all reasonable efforts to serve the application on the tenant in accordance with the RTA. I order that the service requirements on the tenant are dispensed with and that the application is deemed to have been served on the tenant, pursuant to section 91B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, outgoings, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord deemed the tenancy to have ended on 28 April 2024, as they said the owner instructed them to end the tenancy on this date, after they discovered on 25 April 2024 that the tenant had abandoned the property, when conducting a routine inspection.
Pursuant to section 61(3) RTA, the tenant would be liable for rent for up to 28 days after the date that the landlord first became aware that the tenant had abandoned the property, in a periodic tenancy. However, as the landlord has opted for an end date to the tenancy, which is sooner than the requirements of section 61(3) RTA, I accept the landlord’s date for ending the tenancy on 28 April 2024.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, which is 28 April 2024, is $2,340.00.
The landlord also claimed water rates owing by the tenant in the amount of $1,031.39 to 28 April 2024 and provided an internal ledger of water rates. However, the landlord did not provide any water rates invoices, as were requested of them by Tenancy Services on 10 October 2024 and again on 18 October 2024. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove the tenant owed what was claimed for water rates. This claim is therefore dismissed.

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 landlord said the tenant broke three windows at the property and claimed $977.50 to replace the windows. The landlord provided an invoice in this amount to replace three windows. However, the landlord did not provide any other evidence to prove the tenant likely caused these broken windows during the tenancy. The landlord did not provide any photographs or any Ingoing or Outgoing Inspection reports, or any other similar evidence of this damage. I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence and so dismiss this claim. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay $2,367.00 from the bond of $$2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond of $153.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been partly successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. As they have been partly successful with the claim, the landlord is entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5026948 — net $2,367.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28.4.2024	$2,340.00	Rent arrears to 28.4.2024
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,367.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,367.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Service requirements on the tenant are dispensed with and the application is deemed to have been served on the tenant, pursuant to section 91B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Vetekina Finau is to pay [The landlord/s] $2,367.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay $2,367.00 from the bond of $$2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond of $153.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord attended the teleconference hearing. The phone number for the tenant, the last three digits being 384, was called twice, without response.
At the start of the hearing, [The landlord’s representative] discussed the efforts the landlord had made to locate the tenant. [The landlord’s representative] said the tenant had abandoned the tenancy, that the landlord first became aware that the tenant had abandoned the property on 25 April 2024 when they conducted a routine inspection, and that they then made efforts to find the tenant. [The landlord’s representative] said they contacted the tenant’s former partner, who had lived at the property but had left before the tenant. [The landlord’s representative] indicated the former partner gave them an address for the tenant but when they went to this address, the tenant did not live there. They believe they were given a fake address by the tenant’s former partner. [The landlord’s representative] said they have tried to contact the tenant’s mother, who is her emergency contact in the Tenancy Agreement, and have called the tenant’s phone number and have emailed two email addresses they have for the tenant, all without any success.
The landlord has not met the service requirements set out in section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), for service of an application filed more than 2 months after the termination of the tenancy, as the application was not served personally on the tenant, nor was it posted to an address the tenant supplied to the landlord within the 2 months before the application, nor was it delivered to the tenant’s current address, nor was it served on a solicitor or other duly authorised representative for the tenant.
However, [The landlord’s representative] asked that an order be made dispensing with service pursuant to section 91B(2)c) RTA. I am satisfied, based on [The landlord’s representative]’s evidence, that the landlord made all reasonable efforts to serve the application on the tenant in accordance with the RTA. I order that the service requirements on the tenant are dispensed with and that the application is deemed to have been served on the tenant, pursuant to section 91B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, outgoings, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord deemed the tenancy to have ended on 28 April 2024, as they said the owner instructed them to end the tenancy on this date, after they discovered on 25 April 2024 that the tenant had abandoned the property, when conducting a routine inspection.
Pursuant to section 61(3) RTA, the tenant would be liable for rent for up to 28 days after the date that the landlord first became aware that the tenant had abandoned the property, in a periodic tenancy. However, as the landlord has opted for an end date to the tenancy, which is sooner than the requirements of section 61(3) RTA, I accept the landlord’s date for ending the tenancy on 28 April 2024.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy, which is 28 April 2024, is $2,340.00.
The landlord also claimed water rates owing by the tenant in the amount of $1,031.39 to 28 April 2024 and provided an internal ledger of water rates. However, the landlord did not provide any water rates invoices, as were requested of them by Tenancy Services on 10 October 2024 and again on 18 October 2024. As such, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove the tenant owed what was claimed for water rates. This claim is therefore dismissed.

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 landlord said the tenant broke three windows at the property and claimed $977.50 to replace the windows. The landlord provided an invoice in this amount to replace three windows. However, the landlord did not provide any other evidence to prove the tenant likely caused these broken windows during the tenancy. The landlord did not provide any photographs or any Ingoing or Outgoing Inspection reports, or any other similar evidence of this damage. I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence and so dismiss this claim. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay $2,367.00 from the bond of $$2,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the bond of $153.00 is to remain at the Bond Centre. Filing fee
Because [The landlord/s] has been partly successful with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord requested name suppression. As they have been partly successful with the claim, the landlord is entitled to name suppression. Therefore, I order that the landlord’s name and identifying details are not to be published. See section 95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5026948 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5026948 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions