What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5050237 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant] and [Landlord] name and

How much money was awarded in case 5050237?

Al Orders Suppression Of The [Tenant…: $6,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5050237?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5050237?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11495871-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5050237 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant] and [Landlord] name and

How much money was awarded in case 5050237?

Al Orders Suppression Of The [Tenant…: $6,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5050237?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5050237?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11495871-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5050237 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5050237. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
al orders suppression of the [Tenant] and [Landlord] name and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] is to pay [The land	$6,000.00		al orders suppression of the [Tenant] and [Landlord] name and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] is to pay [The land

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant] and [Landlord] name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $6,000.00 immediately, as set out in the order.

Reasons

I adjourned the hearing of 4 December 2024 at the Tenant’s request. In my Order of 12 December 2024, I explained how, on further reflection, I considered I had made an error in granting an adjournment.
The Tenant sought an adjournment because the damage in question was also the subject of criminal proceedings against the Tenant’s son, and the Tenant argued that any reparation order might overlap with the Landlord’s claim here.
I provided substantive reasons why that reason alone is insufficient to justify an adjournment.
The matter was then set down for a hearing on 26 February 2025. The Landlord attended, but the Tenant and any representative did not appear.
Prior correspondence shows the Tenant requested a further adjournment for reasons including:
1.Potential double recovery or res judicata, given the criminal matter.
2.Late receipt of Tribunal documents; the notice of hearing for the hearing on 26 February 2025 and my order of 12 December 2024. [The Tenant argues her representative was not formally added onto the Tribunal record and was not receiving documentation from the Tribunal.]
3.The Tenant’s desire for a legal representative or social worker (unavailable).
The legal position regarding overlapping criminal proceedings had been clearly set out in the December order (see paragraphs [3]–[24] therein).
Civil proceedings in the Tenancy Tribunal can rightly proceed despite parallel criminal charges. 1
The Tribunal attempted to contact the Tenant’s representative on multiple occasions (seven phone calls, emails).
The Tenant and their representative have known about the Landlord’s application for some time. The Tenant’s representative sought an adjournment of the December hearing, despite not having personally received a copy of the notice of hearing for that event.
The Tribunal has tried to clarify any questions or misunderstandings before the hearing.
Under s 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, representation is not automatically granted simply because a claim is over a certain amount. Even if a claim exceeds $6,000, an application is still required, and can be opposed.
The Tribunal has dealt with the Tenant’s representative and acknowledges this will have created an informal expectation of continued involvement, but the Tenant’s representative and their contact details have not been put onto the system, because no formal request for representation was filed. This is standard practice in tribunals and courts, where a formal notice or request for representation must be filed first before a representatives details are entered onto the record.
The Landlord would have had the opportunity to accept or oppose the Tenant’s request for representation at the hearing.
On 26 February 2025, the Landlord indicated she wished the Tenant had reached out to her from the beginning. The Landlord said she was understanding of the Tenant’s plight and wanted to be reasonable. However, the Tenant has avoided her.
The Landlord indicated she would reduce her claim below $6,000 so the hearing could proceed without either party having any right of representation. I considered whether the Tenant could oppose this adjustment given it was made on the 1 Rudman v Way [2008] 3 NZLR 404 and McMahon v Gould (1982) 1 ACLC 98. morning of the hearing. However, I have decided the balance of convenience favours the Landlord, who, I accept, will be prejudiced by further delays.
It must also be remembered that the Tribunal is a layperson’s forum and, under s 85, must proceed expeditiously. Balancing the Tenant’s interest in securing representation (despite not having made a formal request or maintained consistent communication or turned up to the hearing to talk with the adjudicator) against the Landlord’s interest in avoiding further delay and addressing significant alleged losses, the Tribunal finds it fair and appropriate to proceed.
The Tenancy Tribunal is designed so that parties can appear and present their case without a legally trained professional. The Tribunal actively manages hearings to ensure fairness, and many parties do attend self-represented.
As no sufficient reason for further adjournment was received, the hearing proceeded at 2.00pm.
The bottom line is this, parties must attend the hearing unless a matter is adjourned.
The Tenant did not attend. Even if her representative was unavailable, the Tenant should have attended. Substantive Reasons
The Landlord has applied for lost arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Landlord’s claim concerns significant damage to the premises, allegedly caused by the Tenant’s son.
The Landlord also seeks compensation for lost rent while repairing the property.
There was no bond taken at the start of the tenancy. The Landlord had trusted the Tenant’s good record. Hence, there is no bond to refund. Background – Attempted Arson Incident
The Tenant’s son was apparently bailed to the Tenant’s address without the Landlord’s knowledge, in breach of the Tenancy Agreement which prohibits this.
According to the Landlord’s unopposed evidence from the Police, the son was not supposed to consume alcohol (a bail condition) but did so.
On or about 5 September 2024, he allegedly doused the inside of the home (carpets, rooms, curtains, walls) with gasoline and lit a small fire.
This is a rural property with fuel available on-site. On the Landlord’s unopposed evidence, fire services concluded that an explosion would have been massive if the fire had ignited more fully, potentially shattering windows in the nearby subdivision and endangering life.
The Tenant was absent during the incident, which police and fire services responded to. The son was charged with [Attempted Arson] and is currently facing charges in the District Court. The matters return to court on or about 7 March, but resolution by trial or sentencing could be some time off.
According to the Tenant, reparation is also being sought in that forum. The Landlord acknowledges this point. I have dealt with this in my decision of 12 December 2024.
The District Court is addressing the criminal aspect, including any potential reparation, and that such proceedings do not prevent the Tenancy Tribunal from considering and determining the civil claim under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, nor do they prevent the Court from substituting is own decision in place of this one, on appeal.
The Landlord claims:
1. Lost rent ($800.00): covering two weeks at $400/week, while the house was uninhabitable.
2. Cost of repainting / resealing ($5,000.00): due to petrol fumes and stains on walls and ceilings.
3. Carpet replacement ($1,500.00): a reduced figure, acknowledging depreciation from the originally claimed $2,600.
4. The Landlord also gave evidence about other consequential losses – such as fence cutting by fire trucks, a ruined driveway affecting plans to bring in a “tiny home,” and general emotional distress. However, the Landlord is not claiming these additional losses in this application.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Under sections 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B of the Act, landlords must prove damage occurred during the tenancy beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant (or occupant with tenant’s permission) who carelessly or intentionally causes damage can be liable. Tenants are liable for associates who cause damage if they had permission to be on the premises.
This damage is plainly more than fair wear and tear. Petrol was poured throughout the interior; it required specialist sealing and new carpet.
The Landlord has provided an email from its insurance company indicating they sent an assessor who found the damage was deliberate leading them to decline cover.
Where damage is intentional or arises from an imprisonable offence, the liability limits in s 49B(3) do not apply. Attempted arson is obviously imprisonable. The Tenant’s son did these acts while in the property with the Tenant’s permission.
Consequently, the Tenant has no statutory cap on liability. The Landlord’s lack of insurance coverage (or refusal from insurer) is also relevant.
As s 49B(1) confirms, tenants are liable for intentional damage resulting from an imprisonable offence caused by someone they allowed to be at the premises.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the damage was intentional, meeting the test in Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. The occupant deliberately poured fuel and lit a fire to cause harm or an explosion. The Tenant, by permitting him to stay (and allegedly failing to inform the Landlord he was on bail), remains liable under s 41 RTA.
The damage includes:
1. Extensive contamination of walls and ceilings (necessitating full repaint with sealing products).
2. Carpet saturated by petrol and subsequent extinguishing efforts (also requiring sealing of concrete foundations).
The Landlord’s evidence proves the damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The Tenant did not attend or dispute liability or present evidence to the contrary.
The amounts awarded for repainting ($5,000) and carpet ($1,500) are proved with reference to paid invoices submitted by the Landlord.
In calculating depreciation, the Landlord already adjusted the carpet claim downward from $2,600 to $1,500 to avoid betterment.
The painting cost is accepted as a necessity to remove the intense fumes.
The Landlord notes they “should have taken a bond,” but that does not affect the Tenant’s liability. The Tribunal simply awards the sums proved, capped at $6,000.00.
In light of the ongoing criminal proceedings, I order suppression of all parties names and details to do with this case. The availability of discretionary name suppression is a further reason why the balance of convenience favoured proceeding with the hearing.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5050237. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
al orders suppression of the [Tenant] and [Landlord] name and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] is to pay [The land	$6,000.00		al orders suppression of the [Tenant] and [Landlord] name and identifying details. 2. [The tenant/s] is to pay [The land

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant] and [Landlord] name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is to pay [The landlord/s] $6,000.00 immediately, as set out in the order.

Reasons

I adjourned the hearing of 4 December 2024 at the Tenant’s request. In my Order of 12 December 2024, I explained how, on further reflection, I considered I had made an error in granting an adjournment.
The Tenant sought an adjournment because the damage in question was also the subject of criminal proceedings against the Tenant’s son, and the Tenant argued that any reparation order might overlap with the Landlord’s claim here.
I provided substantive reasons why that reason alone is insufficient to justify an adjournment.
The matter was then set down for a hearing on 26 February 2025. The Landlord attended, but the Tenant and any representative did not appear.
Prior correspondence shows the Tenant requested a further adjournment for reasons including:
1.Potential double recovery or res judicata, given the criminal matter.
2.Late receipt of Tribunal documents; the notice of hearing for the hearing on 26 February 2025 and my order of 12 December 2024. [The Tenant argues her representative was not formally added onto the Tribunal record and was not receiving documentation from the Tribunal.]
3.The Tenant’s desire for a legal representative or social worker (unavailable).
The legal position regarding overlapping criminal proceedings had been clearly set out in the December order (see paragraphs [3]–[24] therein).
Civil proceedings in the Tenancy Tribunal can rightly proceed despite parallel criminal charges. 1
The Tribunal attempted to contact the Tenant’s representative on multiple occasions (seven phone calls, emails).
The Tenant and their representative have known about the Landlord’s application for some time. The Tenant’s representative sought an adjournment of the December hearing, despite not having personally received a copy of the notice of hearing for that event.
The Tribunal has tried to clarify any questions or misunderstandings before the hearing.
Under s 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, representation is not automatically granted simply because a claim is over a certain amount. Even if a claim exceeds $6,000, an application is still required, and can be opposed.
The Tribunal has dealt with the Tenant’s representative and acknowledges this will have created an informal expectation of continued involvement, but the Tenant’s representative and their contact details have not been put onto the system, because no formal request for representation was filed. This is standard practice in tribunals and courts, where a formal notice or request for representation must be filed first before a representatives details are entered onto the record.
The Landlord would have had the opportunity to accept or oppose the Tenant’s request for representation at the hearing.
On 26 February 2025, the Landlord indicated she wished the Tenant had reached out to her from the beginning. The Landlord said she was understanding of the Tenant’s plight and wanted to be reasonable. However, the Tenant has avoided her.
The Landlord indicated she would reduce her claim below $6,000 so the hearing could proceed without either party having any right of representation. I considered whether the Tenant could oppose this adjustment given it was made on the 1 Rudman v Way [2008] 3 NZLR 404 and McMahon v Gould (1982) 1 ACLC 98. morning of the hearing. However, I have decided the balance of convenience favours the Landlord, who, I accept, will be prejudiced by further delays.
It must also be remembered that the Tribunal is a layperson’s forum and, under s 85, must proceed expeditiously. Balancing the Tenant’s interest in securing representation (despite not having made a formal request or maintained consistent communication or turned up to the hearing to talk with the adjudicator) against the Landlord’s interest in avoiding further delay and addressing significant alleged losses, the Tribunal finds it fair and appropriate to proceed.
The Tenancy Tribunal is designed so that parties can appear and present their case without a legally trained professional. The Tribunal actively manages hearings to ensure fairness, and many parties do attend self-represented.
As no sufficient reason for further adjournment was received, the hearing proceeded at 2.00pm.
The bottom line is this, parties must attend the hearing unless a matter is adjourned.
The Tenant did not attend. Even if her representative was unavailable, the Tenant should have attended. Substantive Reasons
The Landlord has applied for lost arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The Landlord’s claim concerns significant damage to the premises, allegedly caused by the Tenant’s son.
The Landlord also seeks compensation for lost rent while repairing the property.
There was no bond taken at the start of the tenancy. The Landlord had trusted the Tenant’s good record. Hence, there is no bond to refund. Background – Attempted Arson Incident
The Tenant’s son was apparently bailed to the Tenant’s address without the Landlord’s knowledge, in breach of the Tenancy Agreement which prohibits this.
According to the Landlord’s unopposed evidence from the Police, the son was not supposed to consume alcohol (a bail condition) but did so.
On or about 5 September 2024, he allegedly doused the inside of the home (carpets, rooms, curtains, walls) with gasoline and lit a small fire.
This is a rural property with fuel available on-site. On the Landlord’s unopposed evidence, fire services concluded that an explosion would have been massive if the fire had ignited more fully, potentially shattering windows in the nearby subdivision and endangering life.
The Tenant was absent during the incident, which police and fire services responded to. The son was charged with [Attempted Arson] and is currently facing charges in the District Court. The matters return to court on or about 7 March, but resolution by trial or sentencing could be some time off.
According to the Tenant, reparation is also being sought in that forum. The Landlord acknowledges this point. I have dealt with this in my decision of 12 December 2024.
The District Court is addressing the criminal aspect, including any potential reparation, and that such proceedings do not prevent the Tenancy Tribunal from considering and determining the civil claim under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, nor do they prevent the Court from substituting is own decision in place of this one, on appeal.
The Landlord claims:
1. Lost rent ($800.00): covering two weeks at $400/week, while the house was uninhabitable.
2. Cost of repainting / resealing ($5,000.00): due to petrol fumes and stains on walls and ceilings.
3. Carpet replacement ($1,500.00): a reduced figure, acknowledging depreciation from the originally claimed $2,600.
4. The Landlord also gave evidence about other consequential losses – such as fence cutting by fire trucks, a ruined driveway affecting plans to bring in a “tiny home,” and general emotional distress. However, the Landlord is not claiming these additional losses in this application.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Under sections 40(2)(a), 41, and 49B of the Act, landlords must prove damage occurred during the tenancy beyond fair wear and tear. The tenant (or occupant with tenant’s permission) who carelessly or intentionally causes damage can be liable. Tenants are liable for associates who cause damage if they had permission to be on the premises.
This damage is plainly more than fair wear and tear. Petrol was poured throughout the interior; it required specialist sealing and new carpet.
The Landlord has provided an email from its insurance company indicating they sent an assessor who found the damage was deliberate leading them to decline cover.
Where damage is intentional or arises from an imprisonable offence, the liability limits in s 49B(3) do not apply. Attempted arson is obviously imprisonable. The Tenant’s son did these acts while in the property with the Tenant’s permission.
Consequently, the Tenant has no statutory cap on liability. The Landlord’s lack of insurance coverage (or refusal from insurer) is also relevant.
As s 49B(1) confirms, tenants are liable for intentional damage resulting from an imprisonable offence caused by someone they allowed to be at the premises.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the damage was intentional, meeting the test in Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. The occupant deliberately poured fuel and lit a fire to cause harm or an explosion. The Tenant, by permitting him to stay (and allegedly failing to inform the Landlord he was on bail), remains liable under s 41 RTA.
The damage includes:
1. Extensive contamination of walls and ceilings (necessitating full repaint with sealing products).
2. Carpet saturated by petrol and subsequent extinguishing efforts (also requiring sealing of concrete foundations).
The Landlord’s evidence proves the damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The Tenant did not attend or dispute liability or present evidence to the contrary.
The amounts awarded for repainting ($5,000) and carpet ($1,500) are proved with reference to paid invoices submitted by the Landlord.
In calculating depreciation, the Landlord already adjusted the carpet claim downward from $2,600 to $1,500 to avoid betterment.
The painting cost is accepted as a necessity to remove the intense fumes.
The Landlord notes they “should have taken a bond,” but that does not affect the Tenant’s liability. The Tribunal simply awards the sums proved, capped at $6,000.00.
In light of the ongoing criminal proceedings, I order suppression of all parties names and details to do with this case. The availability of discretionary name suppression is a further reason why the balance of convenience favoured proceeding with the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5050237 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5050237 — 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