What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5049508 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 5049508?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Carpet: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5049508?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5049508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11464461-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5049508 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 5049508?

Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Carpet: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5049508?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5049508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11464461-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

5 Halkett Street, Darfield, Darfield 7510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5049508 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5049508 — net $375.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Carpet	$1,500.00		Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Wall & Ceiling Damage	$750.00		Repairs: Wall & Ceiling Damage
Refund Bond		$1,125.00	Refund Bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to Lodge the Bond		$750.00	Failure to Lodge the Bond
Total award	$2,250.00	$1,875.00
Net award	$375.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$375.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Brett Moore $375.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims the bond and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. The bond was never lodged.
The landlord claims compensation for damage to the premises.
The tenancy started in August 2019 and ended in January 2024. Both parties waited nearly a year to file their applications. The tenant made her application first closely followed by the landlord’s application. The reason for the lateness of the applications in both cases appears to be that the tenant moved to [country] after the tenancy ended.
The landlord was not prepared to proceed with his application when the matters were first scheduled for hearing in December 2024. Following the first hearing, by telephone, the Tribunal issued clear directions to the parties regarding clarification of their claims and submitting documents. Neither party complied with the directions.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” (emphasis added) Tenant Claims
The tenant claims refund of the bond and exemplary damages because the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required period.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest (see section 109(3) RTA).
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. The Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).
The bond for this tenancy was never lodged. The landlord had no explanation for the failure to lodge the bond. He said that he was aware of the requirement. He has rented this property out previously and acknowledged that he did not lodge the bond then either.
I find that an award of exemplary damages is required to promote the public interest in ensuring bonds are lodged. I award $750.00. This landlord is now on notice that, if he fails to lodge bonds in the future, an award of exemplary damages is likely to be higher.

Landlord Claims - Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims for replacement carpet ($4,482), wall repairs and painting ($5,520) and ceiling repairs ($2,100) but provided very limited evidence of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy and not photographic evidence from the start of the tenancy.
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.
The landlord claims that there are burn marks in carpet in two rooms and the carpet needs to be replaced. The carpet has not been replaced, more than a year after this tenancy ended and the premises have been re-tenanted. The tenant acknowledged that the carpet was new at the start of her tenancy and says that the burn marks occurred from incense sticks falling over and the nylon carpet melting.
The landlord provided photographs of the damage to the carpet. I am not persuaded that the carpet needs to be replaced, the damage is more than fair wear and tear but is minor or modest.
The landlord advised that he has insurance but did not make a claim. He said that the excess is $750.00.
Having regard to s49B, the extent of the damage and the fact that carpet has not been replaced, I award the landlord $1,500 for carpet damage. This can be viewed as 2 insurance excesses but, even without insurance, I would not have awarded more than $1,500 given the modest nature of the damage.
The landlord also claimed for wall ($5,520) and ceiling ($2,100) repairs. Again, the evidence was sparse. Much of the wall damage was scuffing and small dents that come with living in a house for 4.5 years. The tenant acknowledged responsibility for some damage to a ceiling.
I award $750 for all surface repairs, having regard to the tenant’s acknowledgement regarding the ceiling and the lack of evidence from the landlord.
As both parties were partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either Tribunal application fee. Overall, the tenant was substantially successful with her claim, so I have granted her required (on her application) for suppression of her details. The landlord did not apply for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5049508 — net $375.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs: Carpet	$1,500.00		Repairs: Carpet
Repairs: Wall & Ceiling Damage	$750.00		Repairs: Wall & Ceiling Damage
Refund Bond		$1,125.00	Refund Bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to Lodge the Bond		$750.00	Failure to Lodge the Bond
Total award	$2,250.00	$1,875.00
Net award	$375.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$375.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Brett Moore $375.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant claims the bond and exemplary damages for the landlord’s failure to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. The bond was never lodged.
The landlord claims compensation for damage to the premises.
The tenancy started in August 2019 and ended in January 2024. Both parties waited nearly a year to file their applications. The tenant made her application first closely followed by the landlord’s application. The reason for the lateness of the applications in both cases appears to be that the tenant moved to [country] after the tenancy ended.
The landlord was not prepared to proceed with his application when the matters were first scheduled for hearing in December 2024. Following the first hearing, by telephone, the Tribunal issued clear directions to the parties regarding clarification of their claims and submitting documents. Neither party complied with the directions.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” (emphasis added) Tenant Claims
The tenant claims refund of the bond and exemplary damages because the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required period.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received (see s 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986). This applies whether the bond is paid in part or whole.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 (see s 19(2) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest (see section 109(3) RTA).
A bond is the tenants’ money and must be lodged with the Bond Centre within the statutory time limit to protect the tenants’ interests. Lodging a bond is not a conditional obligation but a mandatory one and it is in the public interest that landlords fulfil their obligations under the Act. If no penalty is imposed there can be no deterrent.
The failure to lodge the bond must be intentional for exemplary damages to be awarded. The Tribunal may draw an inference of intent where the landlord claims to have simply forgotten, as a landlord should have systems in place to ensure this does not happen. Exemplary damages have been awarded where: the landlord has no explanation for the non-lodgement and has other tenancies (Jones v Ying [2001] NZTT Auckland 2783/01); the landlord is experienced (Hart v Allen Realty Ltd [2003] NZTT Auckland 2183/02); and where the landlord knew of the obligation from the bond form signed by the tenant (Fu v Florendo [2013] DC Manukau, CIV-2013-092-2373).
The bond for this tenancy was never lodged. The landlord had no explanation for the failure to lodge the bond. He said that he was aware of the requirement. He has rented this property out previously and acknowledged that he did not lodge the bond then either.
I find that an award of exemplary damages is required to promote the public interest in ensuring bonds are lodged. I award $750.00. This landlord is now on notice that, if he fails to lodge bonds in the future, an award of exemplary damages is likely to be higher.

Landlord Claims - Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord claims for replacement carpet ($4,482), wall repairs and painting ($5,520) and ceiling repairs ($2,100) but provided very limited evidence of the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy and not photographic evidence from the start of the tenancy.
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.
The landlord claims that there are burn marks in carpet in two rooms and the carpet needs to be replaced. The carpet has not been replaced, more than a year after this tenancy ended and the premises have been re-tenanted. The tenant acknowledged that the carpet was new at the start of her tenancy and says that the burn marks occurred from incense sticks falling over and the nylon carpet melting.
The landlord provided photographs of the damage to the carpet. I am not persuaded that the carpet needs to be replaced, the damage is more than fair wear and tear but is minor or modest.
The landlord advised that he has insurance but did not make a claim. He said that the excess is $750.00.
Having regard to s49B, the extent of the damage and the fact that carpet has not been replaced, I award the landlord $1,500 for carpet damage. This can be viewed as 2 insurance excesses but, even without insurance, I would not have awarded more than $1,500 given the modest nature of the damage.
The landlord also claimed for wall ($5,520) and ceiling ($2,100) repairs. Again, the evidence was sparse. Much of the wall damage was scuffing and small dents that come with living in a house for 4.5 years. The tenant acknowledged responsibility for some damage to a ceiling.
I award $750 for all surface repairs, having regard to the tenant’s acknowledgement regarding the ceiling and the lack of evidence from the landlord.
As both parties were partially successful, I have not awarded reimbursement of either Tribunal application fee. Overall, the tenant was substantially successful with her claim, so I have granted her required (on her application) for suppression of her details. The landlord did not apply for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5049508 — Property damage at 5 Halkett Street, Darfield, Darfield 7510

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5049508 — Property damage at 5 Halkett Street, Darfield, Darfield 7510

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Landlord Claims - 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

Landlord Claims - Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions