How much money was awarded in case 5134668?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $270.72 awarded to landlord; Walls And Ceiling: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5134668?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5134668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11563163-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5134668?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $270.72 awarded to landlord; Walls And Ceiling: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5134668?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5134668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11563163-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5134668 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5134668 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 5134668. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 Jan 2025	$270.72	Rent arrears to 4 Jan 2025
Repairs: Walls and ceiling	$1,000.00	Repairs: Walls and ceiling
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement

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

The Bond Centre is to pay $1,297.72 of the bond ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the remainder of the bond of $547.28 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Candace M Jeffery immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Following the end of the tenancy, the landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation for damage, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The tenant accepts that she caused some damage to the walls and ceiling, but says she took steps to remedy the damage caused. The tenant disputes that she is liable for rent until the end of 4 January 2025 as she says she moved out on 3 January 2025. The tenant accepts she did not return the keys to the landlord until 5 January 2025. Burden and standard of proof

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.

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 fraction 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.

How much is owed for rent?

Notice was given to the tenant to vacate the premises by 3 January 2025. The tenant says she moved her belongings out by 3 January 2025 but did not return the keys to the landlord until 5 January 2025.

It is a requirement that, on termination of the tenancy, the tenant return the keys to the landlord: see section 40(1)(e)(iv) of the RTA.

I find the tenancy ended on 5 January 2025. The landlord provided rent records and seeks rent up until 4 January 2025.

The amount ordered is proved.

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.

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). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

The landlord says the tenant caused damage to the ceilings and walls in the kitchen/living area and also the two bedrooms. The landlord says has obtained a quote for repair work, which was completed last week, but she has not yet received the final invoice. The quote provided (and which the landlord expects to be invoiced for) is for $2500 + GST. The quote includes “fix oven switch” and “interior cleaning.” The invoice does not provide an itemised amount for the repair work to the ceilings and walls.

The landlord claims the tenant damaged to power switch for the oven. During the hearing, the landlord produced a photo on her phone which showed the power switch had been pushed in. The landlord says it needs replacing.

The landlord has provided some photos taken on 6 January 2025 to show the damage to the walls and ceilings. The landlord also played a video, also taken on 6 January 2025, on their phone during the hearing (watched by myself, and separately, by the tenant) which was a walk-through of the premises and showed the patches on the ceiling and walls.

The tenant accepts that they caused some damage to the ceilings and walls. The tenant says they put pins in the walls and ceilings to hang pictures, scarves and flags, and that when some of these were removed, some of the paint was taken off. The tenant says these were in place during a routine inspection during the tenancy and the landlord did not take issue with them. The tenant says that when she removed the items, and noticed the damage, she purchased some paint matched to the wall colour to remedy these areas. She says she did not realise the ceiling was a different colour and that that is why the patches on the ceiling are particularly visible. The tenant says she asked for an opportunity to remedy the damage after the tenancy had ended, but the landlord refused. The tenant says any damage caused was not intentional, but as a result of hanging her pictures, scarves etc.

The tenant disputes that she caused holes in the wall in the bedroom wall. The tenant says they had been patched prior to her moving in.

The tenant also disputes damaging the oven power switch. She says she was not aware of any damage to it when she moved out and says it is fair wear and tear.

Given the tenant accepts she caused some damage to the ceiling and walls, I make an award to the landlord in compensation for that. The quote the landlord has provided does not itemise the different tasks to be carried out, and so I estimate an appropriate award for the work to remedy the ceilings and walls is $1,000.00.

In making that award, I note that I do not find the landlord has proved the tenant caused the patched holes in the bedroom wall. The landlord did not produce evidence of the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, therefore they have not discharged the burden of proving that damage was not there before this tenant moved in. The only evidence produced by the landlord was photographs taken on 1 October 2023, which was prior to another tenant moving in. The tenant denies causing that damage, and the landlord has not proved otherwise.

I also make no award for the oven switch. The landlord did not produce evidence to show the condition the oven switch was in at the start of the tenancy, therefore, as with the holes in the bedroom wall, they have not discharged the burden of proving that damage was not there before this tenant moved in. Even if they had been able to demonstrate it was damaged during the tenancy, the landlord has not proven it was more than fair wear and tear.

At the hearing, the landlord stated they no longer seek compensation for cleaning. The landlords say they cleaned the premises themselves.

The landlords confirmed they do have insurance for damage to the premises, however when they enquired with their insurer they were advised each room would have an excess of $750, and the insurer considered the property to have three rooms (the kitchen/lounge, bedroom 1, and, bedroom 2).

The amounts ordered are proved and are less than the excess under the insurance policy.

I have taken into account betterment. 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. Should the tenant reimburse the landlord’s application fee?

As the landlord has succeeded with the claim the tenant must reimburse the filing fee. Should the parties’ identifying details be suppressed?

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/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. See s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The landlord applied for suppression of their name and the tenancy address. At the hearing, the tenant also sought suppression of their name.

As the landlord’s application was successful, the landlord is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.

As the tenant was not the successful party, they are not entitled to name suppression.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5134668. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 Jan 2025	$270.72	Rent arrears to 4 Jan 2025
Repairs: Walls and ceiling	$1,000.00	Repairs: Walls and ceiling
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement