How much money was awarded in case 5061500?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,947.86 awarded to landlord; Windowsills In Main Bedroom: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Key (Consent: $10.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5061500?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5061500?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11099002-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5061500?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,947.86 awarded to landlord; Windowsills In Main Bedroom: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Key (Consent: $10.90 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5061500?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5061500?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11099002-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

12A Lyttelton Street, Lincoln, Lincoln 7608 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5061500 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5061500 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5061500 — net $255.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 October 2024	$1,947.86	Rent arrears to 31 October 2024
Repairs: windowsills in main bedroom	$250.00	Repairs: windowsills in main bedroom
Replace key (consent	$10.90	Replace key (consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$255.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$255.76

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Jason Collins and Katherine Louise Moseley must pay [The landlord/s] $255.76 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,980.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

The tenants’ application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Moseley represented the tenants.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation (repair cost for damage to windowsills), refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants have applied for a rebate of rent, compensation for stress, and exemplary damages for the landlord giving an unlawful notice to terminate the tenancy. Previous application

The Tribunal has already heard and decided some of the issues raised again by the tenants. In its decision dated 7 October 2024, the Tribunal dismissed the tenants’ application to end the tenancy before the expiry of the fixed term on 31 October 2024.

The Tribunal addressed the issues raised by the tenant in their application before the Tribunal now as they relate to the notice the landlord gave to end the tenancy, and their 28-day notice to terminate the tenancy. On the same day the Tribunal issued its decision, the tenants made this application.

The tenant said today that the applications were different because they relied on different sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

However, the Tribunal found that the tenancy was a fixed term tenancy to 31 October 2024 and there were no grounds on which the tenants could reduce the term. In the absence of an appeal, they are bound by that finding – see [2024] NZTT 5007376.

The doctrine of issue estoppel applies in this case. The tenants cannot relitigate an issue already decided. That means they are liable for rent to the end of the fixed term tenancy; their submissions as to why the tenancy should end earlier and what the effect was of the landlord’s notice to end the tenancy after the expiry of the fixed term having been addressed and dismissed.

The tenants’ application for rent relief to the date when they vacated the tenancy (from 12 October 2024) cannot succeed given the Tribunal’s earlier finding and is dismissed.

The Tribunal dealt with the landlord’s 90-day notice to end the tenancy. It was not an unlawful notice; it was simply of no effect. The tenancy was to end on 31 October 2024. The landlord simply wanted the tenants to know that were the tenancy to continue the landlord required possession on 9 December 2024.

As the Tribunal found: Both parties have not understood the law in relation to fixed and periodic tenancies correctly. A fixed term tenancy cannot be terminated by notice and only continues as a periodic tenancy on expiry of the fixed term. See section 60A(1), RTA. I do not find that by giving the tenant 90 days’ notice to end the tenancy that this converts the tenancy to periodic and the 90 day notice, even if it had been valid, would take the end of the tenancy to 9 December which would not be any aid to the tenant.

The tenancy was always a fixed term tenancy to 31 October 2024. While the landlord’s 90-day notice to terminate the tenancy as of 9 December 2024 was confusing, it cannot be considered an unlawful termination notice. When the notice was given, on 9 September 2024, the tenancy had not converted to a periodic tenancy; the fixed term tenancy remained in place and would end on 31 October 2024 or roll over to a periodic tenancy in the absence of an agreement otherwise.

Without a proven unlawful act, the Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages.

Neither would the Tribunal award compensation. Hurt feelings, confusion, a sense of being let down, or as the tenant put it ‘shambolic communication’ are not sufficient to attract compensation. Compensation generally follows a breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Here there was no breach. The tenants knew that the tenancy was a fixed term tenancy until 31 October 2024; the Tribunal confirmed that in its 7 October 2024 order.

The tenants’ applications for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed. The landlord’s application

The landlord has provided rent records that show rent arrears of $1,947.86 to the end date of the tenancy – 31 October 2024. The tenants are liable for that amount.

The tenant accepted the landlord’s claim for the replacement cost of one key - $10.90. I allow that amount by consent.

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.

The tenant accepted that their dog caused damage to the windowsills in the main bedroom. She said they were not given an opportunity to repair the damage; they could have done so far more cheaply than the quoted price; and they were still willing the undertake the repair.

A tenant’s responsibility is to repair any damage by the time they vacate the tenancy. A landlord is under no obligation to allow a tenant access after the end of a tenancy to do repairs. The tenant gave evidence that Mr Collins painted the walls before they vacated; equally he could have repaired this damage.

The damage, accepted as having been caused during the tenancy, is more than fair wear and tear. The quoted repair cost is objectively reasonable. The tenants are liable for the repair cost. Result

The tenants’ application is dismissed.

The landlord’s application is successful. The tenants will pay the landlord rent arrears of $1,947.86, the key replacement cost of $10.90, compensation of $250.00 for the repair of damaged windowsills, and the Tribunal filing fee of $27.00.

The bond will be paid to the landlord. Allowing for that deduction, the tenants will pay the landlord $255.76. Name suppression

The landlord sought, and is entitled to, an order for name suppression on the successful application.

The tenants sought, but are not entitled to, an order for name suppression as their application and their defence to the landlord’s application are unsuccessful – see section 95A RTA.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5061500 — net $255.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 October 2024	$1,947.86	Rent arrears to 31 October 2024
Repairs: windowsills in main bedroom	$250.00	Repairs: windowsills in main bedroom
Replace key (consent	$10.90	Replace key (consent
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$255.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$255.76