What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5060328 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5060328?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5060328?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5060328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11715137-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5060328 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders

How much money was awarded in case 5060328?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5060328?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Cleanliness, Property damage, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5060328?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11715137-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5060328 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details. 2.
The landlord’s applications for damage to the wall of the stairwell and administrative charges for breach of the Body Corporate Rules are dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The hearing for this matter took place on 06 May 2025. Representatives of the landlord attended the hearing for the landlord. The tenant did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been served notice of the hearing. The tenant has not communicated with the Tribunal as to why he would not attend the hearing and the hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord had applied for replacement of a toilet cistern, but this claim was withdrawn at the hearing. Relevant legal considerations:
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. One of these expectations is that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. That means that the party bringing the claim must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular 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.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 27 September 2024.
The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
This claim is proved.

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

Section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. Section 40(1)(ca) of the RTA provides that the tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord has provided photographs of the premises showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. Given the state of the premises, as shown in the photographs, I accept that a significant amount of cleaning would have been required. I award the full sum claimed for cleaning the premises, $575.00 (including GST), and $159.75 (including GST) for rubbish removal.
The landlord has provided an invoice showing that it incurred the cost of $35.75 (including GST) to replace lightbulbs at the end of the tenancy. This claim is proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the RTA provides that 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.
Section 40(5) of the RTA provides that a person’s liability for the premises includes facilities.
Section 49B(3)(a) of the RTA provides that 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).
Section 49B(3)(b) of the RTA provides that 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). Section 49B(3A)(a) of the RTA provides that where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Section 49B(1) of the RTA provides that 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.
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 says the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to the carpet and the paintwork inside the premises; damages to the lift doors and soiling of the lift; damage to the lift lights; two separate incidents of damage to the wall in the stair well. The landlord is also claiming damages in respect of administrative charges made by the Body Corporate against the landlord caused by, the landlord says, the tenant’s breach of the Body Corporate Rules. a. Damage to the carpet and the paintwork:
The landlord has provided photographs from the start of the tenancy and the end of the tenancy showing that the carpet and the paintwork on the curved wall inside the premises were damaged significantly during the tenancy. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that he is liable for this damage or that the damage was not intentional.
The landlord has provided evidence which satisfies me that the landlord has replaced the carpet at a cost of $3,882.35 (including GST) and repainted the curved wall at a cost of $1,058.82 (including GST).
I am required to take betterment and depreciation into account in respect of the carpet. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. Inland Revenue General Depreciation Rates IR266, August 2024 states that carpet in a residential premises has a useful lifespan of 8 years. 1 The landlord said that the carpet that was replaced was laid in October 2018. This means the carpet was six years old at the time it was replaced. Allowing for depreciation, I award $1,224.10 (including GST) for the carpet and $1,058.82 (including GST) to repaint the curved wall. b. Damage and soiling of the lift - 15 August 2024 incident:
The landlord says that on 15 August 2025, the tenant’s associates entered the premises with the tenant’s permission and caused the following damage: a. Damage to the doors of the lift which required realignment; and b. Soiling of the lift which required cleaning.
Section 41 of the RTA provides: (1) The tenant shall be responsible for anything done or omitted to be done by any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) who is in the premises with the tenant’s permission if the act or omission would have constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement had it been the act or omission of the tenant. (2) Where any person (other than the landlord or any person acting on the landlord’s behalf or with the landlord’s authority) intentionally or carelessly damages the premises while the tenant is in the premises, it shall be presumed that the tenant permitted that person to be in the premises unless the tenant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to prevent that person from entering the premises or (as the case may require) to eject that person from the premises. 1 www.ird.govt.nz/depreciation, retrieved on 14 April 2025.
This means that for the landlord to succeed in claims against the tenant for damage which the landlord says was caused by the tenant’s associates, I must be satisfied that those associates: a. Caused the damage; b. That when they caused the damage they were in the premises (which includes the lifts, the lobby and the stairwell) with the tenant’s permission.
It is not enough for me to be satisfied that the tenant knows the individuals who caused the damage or that the tenant had previously given them access to the premises.
The landlord explained that residents must swipe their security cards to gain access to the lobby of the premises. Once inside the lobby, there is unlimited access to the stairwell. However, there are only two units on each floor and the security card is required to obtain access to the residents’ floor either via the stairwell or the lift. The landlord also explained that it is not possible for residents to “buzz in” visitors. This means that access to each individual floor is limited to the residents of the two units on the floor, those persons who are authorised by the residents of the units on the floor and other authorised people.
The landlord has provided CCTV images taken on 15 August 2024 which shows a group in the lift. The landlord has identified the tenant in the CCTV images by his hair and his hat. I accept the landlord’s evidence that the person identified is the tenant. The CCTV images show that the tenant is with this group including a man in a plaid shirt who appears to be urinating in the lift while the tenant holds the lift door for him. The CCTV images show that the person in the plaid shirt in the lift by himself, kicking the doors and waiving his arms. The CCTV images also show soiling to the lifts shortly after this group exited the lifts which required the carpets in the lift to be steam cleaned.
The landlord has also provided an invoice from the Body Corporate and from a lift maintenance company showing that the landlord was charged for the following damage from this incident: cleaning of the lift, steam cleaning the carpet, repair to the lift doors, a call out fee and other administration charges relating to this incident.
From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the damage was caused during the tenancy. I am also satisfied that the person in the plaid shirt was allowed into the premises with the tenant’s permission and that he caused the damage. The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that he is liable for this damage or the damage was not caused intentionally.
This claim is proved, and I award $960.25 (including GST) for this claim. c. Damage to the lift lights – incident on 26 June 2024:
The landlord has provided CCTV photographs of people the landlord says are the tenant’s associates in the lift. Having compared these photographs with the ones provided in respect of the incident on 15 August 2024, I am satisfied that at least one of the individuals is the same as those identified in the images from the August incident and is known to the tenant. The evidence shows that these individuals accessed level 6. The landlord says, and I accept, that as you need the security card to access the floor of the premises, this means it is more likely than not that these individuals were given access to the premises by the tenant.
The CCTV images also show that the lights in the lift were damaged by these individuals.
The tenant did not attend the hearing and has not disproved that he is liable for the damage or that the damage was caused intentionally.
The landlord has claimed $149.50 (including GST) to repair the lift lights. The landlord has also claimed the sum of $333.50 (including GST) for Body Corporate administration charges relating to this incident. However, the invoice shows that only $207.00 (including GST) relates to this incident.
This claim is proved and I award the sum of $356.50 (including GST). d. Damage to the stairwell walls – incidents on 24 and 25 August 2024:
The landlord said that on 24 August 2024 the Building Manager received complaints from the tenant’s neighbours of a women screaming. The landlord said that the Building Manager attended the premises, and the police were called.
The landlord says that the Building Manager said that there were two “tailgaters” who had followed a resident into the premises and that the tailgaters were associates of the tenant. Following the incident, the Building Manager noticed that the wall in the stairwell on level 6 had been kicked in. There was no CCTV footage of who caused this damage.
The landlord said a further incident occurred on 25 August 2024. Another hole appeared in the stairwell wall. The landlord says that this was done by another associate of the tenant who tailgated through the front entrance. The landlord said he kicked the hole in the wall of the stairwell on level 6 because he could not get access from the stairwell.
In both incidents, the landlord says that the individuals who caused the damage obtained entry to the foyer and the stairwell by tailgating another resident. I accept that tenant knew these persons, however, as set out at paragraphs 24-26 above, that is not enough: I must be satisfied that the persons who caused the damage were in the premises with the tenant’s permission.
Section 41(2) of the RTA (see paragraph 24 above) states that if the tenant is at the premises at the time the when the damage is caused, it is presumed the tenant allowed that person to be on the premises and it is up to the tenant to provide that was not the case. This makes sense where the damage caused inside a house or unit. However, in circumstances such as these where the damage has been caused to the wider facilities outside the unit and the evidence is that the person who allegedly caused the damage obtained access via tailgating, I am not willing to find that person was in the stairwell with the tenant’s permission.
Having found that the tenant was not liable the damage to the wall of the stairwell, it is not necessary for me to conclude if the tenant’s associates caused the damage. However, I note that it is the Building Manager’s evidence that that landlord relied on. The Building Manager did not attend the hearing as a witness. The landlord said that this was because the Building Manager was not willing to do so. I find this surprising. As set out in the frequently asked questions attached to the Notice of Hearing, if either party has a witness who does not agree to attend the hearing, that party can ask the Tribunal to summon the witness. e. Incident on 28 August 2024:
The landlord has provided CCTV images showing the tenant allowed dogs into the building on or about 28 August 2024. The landlord says the dog stayed the night in the premises and has produced an invoice from the Body Corporate for $258.75 being charges in relation to these dogs including an after hours call our, review of CCTV footage and follow up the next date to ensure the dogs had left the building.
The Body Corporate Rules the landlord says was given to the tenant simply says “Animals No pets allowed”. I find this rule to be ambiguous; it does not say whether this means pets are not permitted to reside in the premises or to visit the premises.
Residents can expect rules for which they may be charged administration fees to be clear. I do not consider this rule to cover visiting pets and the landlord has not asserted that the dog was residing at the premises.
This claim is dismissed. Filing fee and suppression:
[The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim. For this reason, I have ordered reimbursement of the filing fee and granted the landlord’s application for suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5060328 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5060328 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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