What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5141388 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5141388?

Rent Arrears: $2,970.01 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $23.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5141388?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5141388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11437605-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5141388 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5141388?

Rent Arrears: $2,970.01 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $23.51 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5141388?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5141388?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11437605-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7 Bonair Crescent, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5141388 — Rent arrears

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5141388 — net $2,993.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to the end of 19 January 2025	$2,970.01	Rent arrears to the end of 19 January 2025
Water rates	$23.51	Water rates
Net award	$2,993.52
Bond	$3,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,993.52

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

[The tenants] must pay Home365 Property Management Limited as agent for Min Wang $2,993.52 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,960.00 (6203676-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Home365 Property Management Limited as agent for Min Wang: $2,993.52 [The tenants]: $966.48

Reasons

Luke Qu and Yin Chan attended the hearing for the landlord.

[One of the tenants] attended for the tenants.

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

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 19 January 2025.

The tenants submitted the tenancy has ended earlier. However, the tenants did not give proper notice to end the tenancy until 23 December 2024. At that time, tenants had to give 28 days’ notice, so the tenancy did not end until 19 January 2025.

The tenants did not dispute the water.

The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises or for removing curtains?

The landlord alleges the tenants are liable for the cost of replacing a shattered sliding door glass.

The 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. 1

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. See section 49B(1) RTA.

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. 2 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 2 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The inside glass of the double-glazed sliding door shattered during the tenancy. The tenants say they came home to find the promptly reported the damage and asked for it to be repaired. The tenants say the window shattered when everyone was out of the house. They say the probable cause is a manufacturing or installation defect.

The photographs of the damage are consistent with a sudden catastrophic failure over the entire section of the glass. The tenants looked after the premises. There is no evidence that they were not careful of the premises or damaged anything else. I find the tenants’ explanation plausible.

The tenants have disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord also claimed for the tenants failing to put up curtains that they took down when the tenancy began. However, the tenants took the curtains down because the curtains were in poor condition and badly hung. They had to put up their own curtains, which they took with them when the tenancy ended.

It would not be fair to charge the tenants for the cost of putting up more curtains given the curtains were not provided in a reasonable state of repair at the beginning of the tenancy, and the tenants took them down only to rectify the landlord’s failure in that regard.

These claims are dismissed. Filing fee

No order is made for the filing fee because both parties have succeeded in this claim. Bond

The Bond Centre is to distribute the bond to the parties in accordance with this order. Non-publication

The tenants seek an order for non-publication of their names and identifying details.

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. 3

The tenants have significant succeeded in the proceedings by resisting the landlord’s damage claims. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Non-publication is allowed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5141388 — net $2,993.52 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to the end of 19 January 2025	$2,970.01	Rent arrears to the end of 19 January 2025
Water rates	$23.51	Water rates
Net award	$2,993.52
Bond	$3,960.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,993.52

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
[The tenants] must pay Home365 Property Management Limited as agent for Min Wang $2,993.52 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,960.00 (6203676-004) immediately apportioned as follows: Home365 Property Management Limited as agent for Min Wang: $2,993.52 [The tenants]: $966.48

Reasons

Luke Qu and Yin Chan attended the hearing for the landlord.
[One of the tenants] attended for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 19 January 2025.
The tenants submitted the tenancy has ended earlier. However, the tenants did not give proper notice to end the tenancy until 23 December 2024. At that time, tenants had to give 28 days’ notice, so the tenancy did not end until 19 January 2025.
The tenants did not dispute the water.
The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy.

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises or for removing curtains?

The landlord alleges the tenants are liable for the cost of replacing a shattered sliding door glass.
The 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. 1
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. 2 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), ss 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 2 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The inside glass of the double-glazed sliding door shattered during the tenancy. The tenants say they came home to find the promptly reported the damage and asked for it to be repaired. The tenants say the window shattered when everyone was out of the house. They say the probable cause is a manufacturing or installation defect.
The photographs of the damage are consistent with a sudden catastrophic failure over the entire section of the glass. The tenants looked after the premises. There is no evidence that they were not careful of the premises or damaged anything else. I find the tenants’ explanation plausible.
The tenants have disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord also claimed for the tenants failing to put up curtains that they took down when the tenancy began. However, the tenants took the curtains down because the curtains were in poor condition and badly hung. They had to put up their own curtains, which they took with them when the tenancy ended.
It would not be fair to charge the tenants for the cost of putting up more curtains given the curtains were not provided in a reasonable state of repair at the beginning of the tenancy, and the tenants took them down only to rectify the landlord’s failure in that regard.
These claims are dismissed. Filing fee
No order is made for the filing fee because both parties have succeeded in this claim. Bond
The Bond Centre is to distribute the bond to the parties in accordance with this order. Non-publication
The tenants seek an order for non-publication of their names and identifying details.
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. 3
The tenants have significant succeeded in the proceedings by resisting the landlord’s damage claims. I do not consider that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the tenants’ conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is allowed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5141388 — Rent arrears at 7 Bonair Crescent, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5141388 — Rent arrears at 7 Bonair Crescent, Silverdale, Silverdale 0932

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises or for removing curtains?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Are the tenants liable for damage to the premises or for removing curtains?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions