What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093189 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 5093189?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $205.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,687.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $621.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $486.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093189?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11419632-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5093189 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 5093189?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $205.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,687.50 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $621.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $486.41 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5093189?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5093189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11419632-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5093189 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5093189 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5093189 — net $1,306.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as of 7 January 2025	$2,687.50	Rent arrears as of 7 January 2025
Water rates	$486.41	Water rates
Stove replacement	$500.00	Stove replacement
Remote control replacement	$280.00	Remote control replacement
Lock/key replacement	$205.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$621.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,306.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,306.91

Claims and awards for application 5093189 — net $1,306.91 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears as of 7 January 2025

Amount: $2,687.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears as of 7 January 2025

Water rates

Amount: $486.41
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Stove replacement

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Stove replacement

Remote control replacement

Amount: $280.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Remote control replacement

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $205.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
Okeroa Aani G Hohepa and Rotohiko Ngahuru must pay [The landlord/s] $1,306.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears as of 7 January 2025$2,687.50 Water rates$486.41 Stove replacement$500.00 Remote control replacement$280.00 Lock/key replacement$205.00 Rubbish removal$621.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,806.91 Minus bond- $3,500.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,306.91

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord. The tenancy has ended.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears, $2,687.50 b. Water rates, $486.41 c. Damage to stove, $1,069.50 d. Replacement garage remote control $280.00 e. Rubbish removal, $621.00 f. Lock change $205.00

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.
The District Court has confirmed in the appeal of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583, that exemplary damages under the RTA are ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every breach separately.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 - Rent arrears

The landlord claims for rent arrears to 7 January 2025, the final day of the tenancy, to the sum of $2,687.50 and has presented rent records supporting that. I have no reason to consider this claim has not been established, so this order is made in full. Claim 2 – Water rates
The landlord seeks an order for water rates totalling $486.41 for consumption charges only. Again I have no basis not to accept this claim, it is ordered in full. Claim 3 - Stove
The landlord seeks compensation of $1,069.50 for a broken stove.
The landlord states that during the tenancy, the tenant dropped a pot on the stove, breaking the stove top.
The photographs support that the stove top is a ceramic or glass top or similar. On one corner, the top is broken, and I accept that the stove would be unusable.
The landlord claims compensation for a replacement, and has supplied an estimate for a replacement top to the amount of $1,069.50.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, which I consider dropping a pot would be, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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. But I do not accept this damage was intentionally caused.
As I raised with the landlord today, one of the difficulties in this case, is that the tenancy agreement does not record the level of insurance excess that applies to the premises. This is a requirement of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) in section 13A(2). Because this would be a careless damage case, the tenant would normally only be liable to the maximum of the excess stated on the tenancy agreement.
But there are two other difficulties. Firstly the claim is not based on the actual cost incurred by the landlord, but an estimate.
There is also the issue that compensation is intended compensate actual losses. The stove top would not be brand new (certainly at this time), so some level of depreciation would be needed.
When I take the above factors into account, I consider the tenant should be liable to pay compensation for this careless damage, but I fix that at what I consider to be a fair level of compensation - $500.00. Claim 4 – Remote control
The landlord states that the tenant has lost the remote control to the garage door. The cost to replace the unit was $560.00, but that resulted in two replacement remotes being provided to the landlord. Because one remote was missing, the landlord seeks half of the replacement cost, meaning the claim is $280.00
Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenants responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. That would include door remote controls.
I accept the remote was missing, the tenant is liable for the replacement cost, and how the landlord has assessed the claim (half the cost) is fair and reasonable, so it is ordered in full. Claim 5 – Lock change
The landlord states that the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy.
As set out above, the obligation is on the tenant to return all keys at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied the tenant has not met that obligation, so must be liable for the lock change costs of $205.00. Claim 6 – Rubbish removal and cleaning
The landlord seeks costs for rubbish removal, which was two loads of rubbish. The claim is for tip fees and time for the person to do that work. The landlord seeks costs for cleaning.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
At the end of the tenancy there was considerable rubbish left in bins but not collected. I am satisfied the tenants have breached their obligations around rubbish removal. Further I accept the premises were not returned reasonably clean and tidy, the tenant has provided no evidence to counter the landlord’s claim. This claim is established and ordered in full.
The landlord claims $621.00 for this work, which is ordered in full.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord seeks name suppression, which given the landlord’s success, is ordered.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5093189 — net $1,306.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as of 7 January 2025	$2,687.50	Rent arrears as of 7 January 2025
Water rates	$486.41	Water rates
Stove replacement	$500.00	Stove replacement
Remote control replacement	$280.00	Remote control replacement
Lock/key replacement	$205.00	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$621.00	Rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,306.91
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,306.91

Claims and awards for application 5093189 — net $1,306.91 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears as of 7 January 2025

Amount: $2,687.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears as of 7 January 2025

Water rates

Amount: $486.41
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Stove replacement

Amount: $500.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Stove replacement

Remote control replacement

Amount: $280.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Remote control replacement

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $205.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Rubbish Removal Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
Okeroa Aani G Hohepa and Rotohiko Ngahuru must pay [The landlord/s] $1,306.91 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears as of 7 January 2025$2,687.50 Water rates$486.41 Stove replacement$500.00 Remote control replacement$280.00 Lock/key replacement$205.00 Rubbish removal$621.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,806.91 Minus bond- $3,500.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$1,306.91

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord. The tenancy has ended.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears, $2,687.50 b. Water rates, $486.41 c. Damage to stove, $1,069.50 d. Replacement garage remote control $280.00 e. Rubbish removal, $621.00 f. Lock change $205.00

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.
The District Court has confirmed in the appeal of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Hillis Shearing Limited [2024] NZDC 27583, that exemplary damages under the RTA are ordered on a global basis, rather than for each and every breach separately.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 - Rent arrears

The landlord claims for rent arrears to 7 January 2025, the final day of the tenancy, to the sum of $2,687.50 and has presented rent records supporting that. I have no reason to consider this claim has not been established, so this order is made in full. Claim 2 – Water rates
The landlord seeks an order for water rates totalling $486.41 for consumption charges only. Again I have no basis not to accept this claim, it is ordered in full. Claim 3 - Stove
The landlord seeks compensation of $1,069.50 for a broken stove.
The landlord states that during the tenancy, the tenant dropped a pot on the stove, breaking the stove top.
The photographs support that the stove top is a ceramic or glass top or similar. On one corner, the top is broken, and I accept that the stove would be unusable.
The landlord claims compensation for a replacement, and has supplied an estimate for a replacement top to the amount of $1,069.50.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, which I consider dropping a pot would be, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent.
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. But I do not accept this damage was intentionally caused.
As I raised with the landlord today, one of the difficulties in this case, is that the tenancy agreement does not record the level of insurance excess that applies to the premises. This is a requirement of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) in section 13A(2). Because this would be a careless damage case, the tenant would normally only be liable to the maximum of the excess stated on the tenancy agreement.
But there are two other difficulties. Firstly the claim is not based on the actual cost incurred by the landlord, but an estimate.
There is also the issue that compensation is intended compensate actual losses. The stove top would not be brand new (certainly at this time), so some level of depreciation would be needed.
When I take the above factors into account, I consider the tenant should be liable to pay compensation for this careless damage, but I fix that at what I consider to be a fair level of compensation - $500.00. Claim 4 – Remote control
The landlord states that the tenant has lost the remote control to the garage door. The cost to replace the unit was $560.00, but that resulted in two replacement remotes being provided to the landlord. Because one remote was missing, the landlord seeks half of the replacement cost, meaning the claim is $280.00
Section 40 of the RTA sets out the tenants responsibilities, and that includes that at the end of the tenancy the tenant must “return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for use of the tenant”. That would include door remote controls.
I accept the remote was missing, the tenant is liable for the replacement cost, and how the landlord has assessed the claim (half the cost) is fair and reasonable, so it is ordered in full. Claim 5 – Lock change
The landlord states that the tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy.
As set out above, the obligation is on the tenant to return all keys at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied the tenant has not met that obligation, so must be liable for the lock change costs of $205.00. Claim 6 – Rubbish removal and cleaning
The landlord seeks costs for rubbish removal, which was two loads of rubbish. The claim is for tip fees and time for the person to do that work. The landlord seeks costs for cleaning.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (s45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
At the end of the tenancy there was considerable rubbish left in bins but not collected. I am satisfied the tenants have breached their obligations around rubbish removal. Further I accept the premises were not returned reasonably clean and tidy, the tenant has provided no evidence to counter the landlord’s claim. This claim is established and ordered in full.
The landlord claims $621.00 for this work, which is ordered in full.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord seeks name suppression, which given the landlord’s success, is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093189 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5093189 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

APPLICANTS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions