What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5162571 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 5162571?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5088568 D…: $5,670.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $288.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Door Remote: $95.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $540.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5162571?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5162571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12129434-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5162571 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 5162571?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5088568 D…: $5,670.71 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $288.00 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door: $258.75 awarded to landlord; Replace Garage Door Remote: $95.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $540.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5162571?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5162571?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12129434-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5162571 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5162571 — net $6,879.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5088568 dated 27/01/2025	$5,670.71	Previous order application 5088568 dated 27/01/2025
Rubbish removal	$540.50	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$288.00	Lock/key replacement
Replace garage door remote	$95.00	Replace garage door remote
Repairs: Bathroom door	$258.75	Repairs: Bathroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,879.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,879.96

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Finau Nil Tauiliili Tauiliili and Saofaigaaliilaunatausalaosamoa Tauiliili must pay [The landlord/s] $6,879.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 27 January 2025 under application 5088568.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord’s property manager attended the hearing by video call.
Finau Nil Tauiliili attended the hearing by phone on behalf of both tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The claim in respect of the kitchen cabinet, which was included in an invoice claimed in the application was withdrawn at the hearing and is accordingly dismissed.

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 applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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.

RENT ARREARS AND PREVIOUS ORDER

The parties advised that the tenancy ended on 10 January 2025. On 27 January 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 10 December 2024, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord accepted that the amount of rent arrears ordered in the previous order reflected the rent arrears to 10 January 2025 and the tenant is not liable for additional rent arrears. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. RUBBISH REMOVAL /LOCK REPLACEMENT
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
The tenants did not remove all their rubbish. The landlord provided photographs of rubbish inside and outside the premises. The landlord said they endeavoured to have the tenants remove their rubbish and any belongings in the days following the tenancy terminating, however the tenants did not do so. An invoice was provided in support of the claim. The items in the 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. invoice that relate to rubbish removal amounted to $470+ GST (total $540.50) and I make an order for this amount which I consider reasonable given the level of rubbish that required removal.
The tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disputes the claim and indicates there was an intention to return to collect some items. The tenant is required to return the keys on the termination date. The landlord provided an invoice in support of the claim for $288. I find the amount proved.
The tenants did not return the garage remote. I address this claim further below.

DAMAGE CLAIMS

It is a breach of the RTA if a tenant intentionally or carelessly causes damage or permits any other person to damage the premises. 2 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 4
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). 5 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). 6 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 7
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 2 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 3 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 4 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 5 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA 7 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. responsible for. 8 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. 9
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The tenancy agreement records that the property is not insured, and the property manager did not have any information that differed from this.

DAMAGED GARAGE DOOR

The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the garage door during the tenancy. The repair cost included the cost of two remotes. The tenant was provided with one remote at the commencement of the tenancy and did not return the remote. I will award the cost to replace one remote of $95. The landlord said the wall remote was not working but there is no evidence it was damaged by the tenant. The garage door was approximately 25 years old. Photographs of the garage show areas of rust which may have contributed to the damage. I do not consider the damage to the garage door to be more than fair wear and tear. In addition, I must have regards to the age of the garage door and that it had likely exceeded its useful lifespan in any event. The balance of the claim for the garage door is dismissed.

DAMAGED BATHROOM DOOR

The landlord says the bathroom door was damaged during the tenancy. The repair costs of $225 +GST (for the door, the lock and half the travel charge itemised in the invoice) (total $258.75) was claimed to repair the damage. The tenant says the door was damaged when a young child became locked in the bathroom, and they needed to damage the door to open it in haste to avoid further damage. This damage appears likely to have been caused carelessly and I award the amount claimed for the damaged door.

FILING FEE

8 See section 49B(1) RTA. 9 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

As the landlord as partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.

SUPPRESSION

The landlord sought suppression and as the application is successful in the claim, I have made an order accordingly.
The tenant sought name suppression. In having regards to the public interest and the tenants interest name suppression is declined.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5162571 — net $6,879.96 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Previous order application 5088568 dated 27/01/2025	$5,670.71	Previous order application 5088568 dated 27/01/2025
Rubbish removal	$540.50	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$288.00	Lock/key replacement
Replace garage door remote	$95.00	Replace garage door remote
Repairs: Bathroom door	$258.75	Repairs: Bathroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,879.96
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,879.96

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Finau Nil Tauiliili Tauiliili and Saofaigaaliilaunatausalaosamoa Tauiliili must pay [The landlord/s] $6,879.96 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 27 January 2025 under application 5088568.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord’s property manager attended the hearing by video call.
Finau Nil Tauiliili attended the hearing by phone on behalf of both tenants.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The claim in respect of the kitchen cabinet, which was included in an invoice claimed in the application was withdrawn at the hearing and is accordingly dismissed.

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 applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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.

RENT ARREARS AND PREVIOUS ORDER

The parties advised that the tenancy ended on 10 January 2025. On 27 January 2025 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears to 10 December 2024, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord accepted that the amount of rent arrears ordered in the previous order reflected the rent arrears to 10 January 2025 and the tenant is not liable for additional rent arrears. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. RUBBISH REMOVAL /LOCK REPLACEMENT
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. 1
The tenants did not remove all their rubbish. The landlord provided photographs of rubbish inside and outside the premises. The landlord said they endeavoured to have the tenants remove their rubbish and any belongings in the days following the tenancy terminating, however the tenants did not do so. An invoice was provided in support of the claim. The items in the 1 See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) RTA. invoice that relate to rubbish removal amounted to $470+ GST (total $540.50) and I make an order for this amount which I consider reasonable given the level of rubbish that required removal.
The tenant did not return the keys at the end of the tenancy. The tenant disputes the claim and indicates there was an intention to return to collect some items. The tenant is required to return the keys on the termination date. The landlord provided an invoice in support of the claim for $288. I find the amount proved.
The tenants did not return the garage remote. I address this claim further below.

DAMAGE CLAIMS

It is a breach of the RTA if a tenant intentionally or carelessly causes damage or permits any other person to damage the premises. 2 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage 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
Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 4
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). 5 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). 6 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 7
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 2 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 3 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 4 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). 5 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 6 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA 7 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. responsible for. 8 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. 9
In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take 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. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
The tenancy agreement records that the property is not insured, and the property manager did not have any information that differed from this.

DAMAGED GARAGE DOOR

The landlord claimed that the tenant damaged the garage door during the tenancy. The repair cost included the cost of two remotes. The tenant was provided with one remote at the commencement of the tenancy and did not return the remote. I will award the cost to replace one remote of $95. The landlord said the wall remote was not working but there is no evidence it was damaged by the tenant. The garage door was approximately 25 years old. Photographs of the garage show areas of rust which may have contributed to the damage. I do not consider the damage to the garage door to be more than fair wear and tear. In addition, I must have regards to the age of the garage door and that it had likely exceeded its useful lifespan in any event. The balance of the claim for the garage door is dismissed.

DAMAGED BATHROOM DOOR

The landlord says the bathroom door was damaged during the tenancy. The repair costs of $225 +GST (for the door, the lock and half the travel charge itemised in the invoice) (total $258.75) was claimed to repair the damage. The tenant says the door was damaged when a young child became locked in the bathroom, and they needed to damage the door to open it in haste to avoid further damage. This damage appears likely to have been caused carelessly and I award the amount claimed for the damaged door.

FILING FEE

8 See section 49B(1) RTA. 9 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

As the landlord as partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $27.

SUPPRESSION

The landlord sought suppression and as the application is successful in the claim, I have made an order accordingly.
The tenant sought name suppression. In having regards to the public interest and the tenants interest name suppression is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5162571 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5162571 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT ARREARS AND PREVIOUS ORDER

DAMAGE CLAIMS

DAMAGED GARAGE DOOR

DAMAGED BATHROOM DOOR

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

RENT ARREARS AND PREVIOUS ORDER

DAMAGE CLAIMS

DAMAGED GARAGE DOOR

DAMAGED BATHROOM DOOR

FILING FEE

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions