How much money was awarded in case 5117828?

Compensation: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $212.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $445.78 awarded to landlord; Garage Roller Door: $520.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117828?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11747823-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5117828?

Compensation: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $212.75 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $445.78 awarded to landlord; Garage Roller Door: $520.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5117828?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5117828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11747823-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5117828 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5117828 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 5117828 — net $550.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25.2.25	$445.78	Rent arrears to 25.2.25
Compensation - body corporate breach charge	$402.50	Compensation - body corporate breach charge
Compensation - body corporate breach charge	$862.50	Compensation - body corporate breach charge
Compensation - Call out fee for elevator	$212.75	Compensation - Call out fee for elevator
Repairs: Garage roller door	$520.00	Repairs: Garage roller door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	andlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00 Suppression
Net award	$550.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$550.53

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and [Tenant 1]’s name and identifying details.

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6.00pm on Tuesday 4 March 2025. 3.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $0.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord and Mr Sims attended by MS Teams.

[Tenant 1] attended by phone.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. 1

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

[The tenant/s] have breached their obligations by - a. failing to pay rent as and when due, and b. by having a dog at the premises in breach of the “no pets” clause in the tenancy agreement, and c. failing to comply with body corporate rules in relation to access and security in respect of the building, and d. damaging the premises.

The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on the following dates – a. 25 September 2024 – in relation to the breach of the body corporate rules. b. 13 November 2024 and 3 February 2025 – for rent arrears. c. 15 July 2024 and 15 November 2024 – in relation to the dog and the breach of the body corporate rules by throwing dog excrement off the balcony. d. 19 November 2024 – in relation to damage to the premises.

The tenant did not remedy the breach, where they were capable of remedy, within the required period.

In particular, the tenant remains in rent arrears and continues to have a dog at the premises. 1 See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

For the sake of completeness, I record that the “no pets” clause in the tenancy agreement is enforceable. 2

It would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy because of the number and extent of the breaches, the ongoing breach in relation to the dog being in the premises and the costs being incurred in body corporate fees for breaches. The tenant accepted the tenancy should terminate. The primary issue at the hearing was the date of termination. I consider a reasonable date for the tenancy to end is Tuesday 4 March 2025 and I have made this the termination date.

The landlord has claimed body corporate costs incurred in relation to the breaches, being $402.50 and $862.50 for having a dog in the premises and $212.75 in relation to the elevator call out fee. Invoices were provided and the tenant consented to these amounts being ordered.

As I have terminated for the above breaches of the tenancy agreement, I do not address the claim in relation to the notices for anti-social behaviour but note that I consider these support the position that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate.

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. 3

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). 4

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). 5 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 6

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 2 See Collins v Martin-Kemp [2023] NZTT 4711230 3 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA 4 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA 5 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 7 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. 8

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The garage roller door was damaged by the tenant driving under it as it was closing. i. The landlord said the damage was caused by the careless actions of the tenant and provided video footage of the tenant driving under the roller door. ii. The tenant says the damage was accidental and he has made a claim with his insurance company. He raises that the garage door should have had a safety mechanism to stop it from moving when the car was under it. I consider the safety mechanism was working and the door stopped when the front of his ute went under it, but his ute cover was higher than the roller door and caught the door, causing the damage. I consider the tenant should have stopped as soon as he has noticed the door closing. iii. I consider the damage was caused by the careless act of the tenant and make an order for the amount claimed of $520.00 which does not exceed the statutory maximum.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amount ordered is proved with photographs, video evidence and an invoice.

I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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. The amount claimed is for a repair only therefore no deduction is made for betterment and depreciation. Liability

The landlord has named [Tenant 1] as a respondent in these proceedings but do not seek that any amount ordered, in excess of the bond, is payable by him 7 See section 49B(1) RTA. 8 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. as he vacated the tenancy over a year ago and the landlord accepts Mr Sim’s is responsible for the amounts ordered. Bond

The bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amounts ordered Filing fee

Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00 Suppression

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 9

The landlord was wholly successful in their application; therefore, I make an order for name suppression for the landlord.

The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 10

Mr Sims sought name suppression; however, I consider the public interest supports publication and outweighs the tenant’s interests in the circumstances.

On my initiative I have made an order for name suppression for [Tenant 1], given he has not been living in the premises for over a year and it is in his interests to have suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5117828 — net $550.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25.2.25	$445.78	Rent arrears to 25.2.25
Compensation - body corporate breach charge	$402.50	Compensation - body corporate breach charge
Compensation - body corporate breach charge	$862.50	Compensation - body corporate breach charge
Compensation - Call out fee for elevator	$212.75	Compensation - Call out fee for elevator
Repairs: Garage roller door	$520.00	Repairs: Garage roller door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	andlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00 Suppression
Net award	$550.53
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$550.53

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and [Tenant 1]’s name and identifying details.

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 6.00pm on Tuesday 4 March 2025. 3.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $0.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord and Mr Sims attended by MS Teams.

[Tenant 1] attended by phone.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, rent arrears, compensation, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. 1

The tenant did not remedy the breach, where they were capable of remedy, within the required period.

In particular, the tenant remains in rent arrears and continues to have a dog at the premises. 1 See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

For the sake of completeness, I record that the “no pets” clause in the tenancy agreement is enforceable. 2

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.

The amount ordered is proved with photographs, video evidence and an invoice.

The bond is to be paid to the landlord immediately to offset the amounts ordered Filing fee

Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee of $27.00 Suppression

The landlord was wholly successful in their application; therefore, I make an order for name suppression for the landlord.

Mr Sims sought name suppression; however, I consider the public interest supports publication and outweighs the tenant’s interests in the circumstances.

On my initiative I have made an order for name suppression for [Tenant 1], given he has not been living in the premises for over a year and it is in his interests to have suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5117828 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5117828 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions