What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5204491 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 5204491?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $54.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204491?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12198328-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5204491 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 5204491?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $54.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204491?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204491?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12198328-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5204491 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5204491. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 16/01/2025	$54.28		mary there is one unpaid rent day to that date and the tenant is ordered to pay $54.28. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
Reimburse water damage insurance excess	$1,000.00		Reimburse water damage insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond		$1,520.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all parties’ names and identifying details. 2. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 16/01/2025$54.28 Reimburse water damage insurance excess$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,081.28
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,081.28 [The tenant/s]: $438.72

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by MS Teams.
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?

The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy to start on 21 December 2023 and end on 16 January 2025.
The tenant stated that he gave notice not to continue with the tenancy on 15 November 2024.
The law in relation to the end of a fixed term tenancy has recently changed. The issues in this case were prior to the recent amendments coming into force so I have considered the provisions of section 60A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as in force in November 2024.
Section 60A(2)(c) states that a tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy except if notice is given as follows: “if,— (c) at least 28 days before the expiry, the tenant gives the landlord written notice of the tenant’s intention not to continue with the tenancy; “
The tenant stated that on 15 November 2024 he was locked out of his house as the property manager did an inspection and locked the deadlock when they left. It took five hours for the landlord to arrange to let him back in to the house. The tenant stated that he had a build up of frustration due to issues with getting maintenance done at the property. He provided a copy of a message to the landlord dated 15 November 2024 which included the statement "I need to know who to talk to about ending this lease. I'm grossly unhappy with the way that things have been happening. I'm now waiting for three hours outside of the apartment I am paying for. Have in the past year had to wait over a month for essential maintenance twice. I'm extremely unhappy."
The landlord replied that he would call the tenant.
The landlord stated that he called the tenant later that evening and told him he could not end the fixed term early. He acknowledged that the tenant was upset but stated that they talked through the issues and he thought at the end of the conversation the issues were addressed.
The landlord stated that he did not talk with the tenant any further about the tenancy ending and did not provide him with information about ending the lease. He assumed that it would continue.
The tenant stated that he was very frustrated with the landlord and did not want to continue dealing with the property manager. He stated that at no point did he indicate he had changed his mind about ending the tenancy.
No further communication took place regarding the end of the tenancy until on 8 January 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord stating “I am writing to confirm that you received my notice of intent to vacate, which was communicated via message on November 15th, 2024. In that message, I expressed significant concerns about maintenance response times and access issues, and clearly indicated my intention to end the lease. For your reference, my lease expires on January 16th, 2025, and I will be vacating the property by that date. I wanted to ensure this is properly documented in your system to avoid any misunderstanding. Please confirm receipt of this email and provide any specific move-out instructions or requirements I need to follow.”
The landlord responded on 9 January 2025 “You did say that you would like to move out, however, you had not issued your 28-day notice. I have received your notice today. I will take your 28 days’ notice effective from today and your last day at the property would be 15 Feb 2025.”
The landlord sought the amount of rent arrears to 15 February 2025 in the sum of $1682.86 and provided a rent summary to that date.
The tenant pointed out that the end date of 15 February 2025 given by the landlord was more than five weeks after 9 January 2025 which is in excess of the 28-day notice period.
The landlord subsequently amended the amount sought to $1140.00 to 5 February 2025.
I find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: (a)The landlord acknowledged that the tenant had given notice on 15 November he did not wish to continue with the tenancy as he states in the email to the tenant dated 9 January 2025 “You did say that you would like to move out, however, you had not issued your 28-day notice”. (b)The requirement under section 60A(2)(c) under the previous legislation was that the tenant must give written notice at least 28 days before the end of the tenancy of the intention not to continue. There is no specific requirement regarding the form of this. (c)I am satisfied that the tenant had informed the landlord in writing of his intention not to continue with the tenancy and that the landlord was aware of this as stated in his email to the tenant on 9 January 2025. (d)The landlord has provided no evidence that the tenant withdrew this intention, therefore the tenancy ended on 16 January 2025. (e)For all of the above reasons I find on the evidence before me that the landlord has failed to prove the claim for $1140.00 in rent arrears to the required standard.
The fixed term tenancy ended on 16 January 2025 pursuant to the tenant’s notice of intention not to continue the tenancy. According to the rent summary there is one unpaid rent day to that date and the tenant is ordered to pay $54.28.

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.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: In late November 2024 there was a flood at the premises causing water damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord claimed that the damage was intentional and stated that the tenant fell asleep when the shower was running.
The landlord seeks reimbursement of $5000.00 insurance excess and the building manager callout fee of $348.59 for the losses from the damage.
The tenant does not dispute that there was flood damage but claims that it was careless. He stated that he suffers from allergies and took some antihistamine and then went and sat in the shower. He fell asleep and was woken by the building manager who entered his room after reports of water coming from the apartment.
The tenant claims that as the damage was careless, he should either be liable for the water damage excess which is recorded on his tenancy agreement as $1000.00 or if the Tribunal accepts the excess is $5000.00 a maximum of four weeks rent being $1520.00.
The landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a)if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b)if the premises are insured, a statement— (i)setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii)informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).
The landlord included a statement in the tenancy agreement which set out that the landlord had insurance and the excesses as follows: Is the property insured? ✔ Yes No Tenants may request a copy of the policy/policies. Insurance type (e.g. Dwelling Insurance) Material Damage Excess information Tenanted Units $400 Common Areas $400 Unoccupied Units $1,000 Water Damage $1,000 Methamphetamine Contamination $2,500
The landlord stated that the insurance company charged an excess of $5000 on the basis that the damage was deliberate. There is no evidence provided regarding how this conclusion was reached. No evidence of an investigation into the cause of the damage was provided.
The Tribunal must determine the claim on the evidence provided. The Tribunal has considered the evidence provided and the statements of both landlord and tenant that the damage was caused by the tenant falling asleep with the shower running. The Tribunal finds that there is insufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage was intentionally caused and finds on the evidence provided that the damage was carelessly caused.
The insurance excess for water damage recorded in the tenancy agreement is $1000.00.
As the Tribunal is required to order the tenant to pay the lesser of four weeks rent or the applicable insurance excess the maximum the Tribunal can order the tenant to pay is the excess of $1000.00 as recorded in the tenancy agreement for water damage. Therefore, the tenant is ordered to pay this amount. See section 49B (3) RTA. Filing fee/Suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has applied for suppression. Both parties have had some success in these proceedings. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal finds that the interests of the parties outweigh the publication of their identities and grants suppression of all party identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5204491. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 16/01/2025	$54.28		mary there is one unpaid rent day to that date and the tenant is ordered to pay $54.28. Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
Reimburse water damage insurance excess	$1,000.00		Reimburse water damage insurance excess
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Bond		$1,520.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all parties’ names and identifying details. 2. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears to 16/01/2025$54.28 Reimburse water damage insurance excess$1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$1,081.28
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,081.28 [The tenant/s]: $438.72

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by MS Teams.
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?

The parties entered into a fixed term tenancy to start on 21 December 2023 and end on 16 January 2025.
The tenant stated that he gave notice not to continue with the tenancy on 15 November 2024.
The law in relation to the end of a fixed term tenancy has recently changed. The issues in this case were prior to the recent amendments coming into force so I have considered the provisions of section 60A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 as in force in November 2024.
Section 60A(2)(c) states that a tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy except if notice is given as follows: “if,— (c) at least 28 days before the expiry, the tenant gives the landlord written notice of the tenant’s intention not to continue with the tenancy; “
The tenant stated that on 15 November 2024 he was locked out of his house as the property manager did an inspection and locked the deadlock when they left. It took five hours for the landlord to arrange to let him back in to the house. The tenant stated that he had a build up of frustration due to issues with getting maintenance done at the property. He provided a copy of a message to the landlord dated 15 November 2024 which included the statement "I need to know who to talk to about ending this lease. I'm grossly unhappy with the way that things have been happening. I'm now waiting for three hours outside of the apartment I am paying for. Have in the past year had to wait over a month for essential maintenance twice. I'm extremely unhappy."
The landlord replied that he would call the tenant.
The landlord stated that he called the tenant later that evening and told him he could not end the fixed term early. He acknowledged that the tenant was upset but stated that they talked through the issues and he thought at the end of the conversation the issues were addressed.
The landlord stated that he did not talk with the tenant any further about the tenancy ending and did not provide him with information about ending the lease. He assumed that it would continue.
The tenant stated that he was very frustrated with the landlord and did not want to continue dealing with the property manager. He stated that at no point did he indicate he had changed his mind about ending the tenancy.
No further communication took place regarding the end of the tenancy until on 8 January 2025 the tenant emailed the landlord stating “I am writing to confirm that you received my notice of intent to vacate, which was communicated via message on November 15th, 2024. In that message, I expressed significant concerns about maintenance response times and access issues, and clearly indicated my intention to end the lease. For your reference, my lease expires on January 16th, 2025, and I will be vacating the property by that date. I wanted to ensure this is properly documented in your system to avoid any misunderstanding. Please confirm receipt of this email and provide any specific move-out instructions or requirements I need to follow.”
The landlord responded on 9 January 2025 “You did say that you would like to move out, however, you had not issued your 28-day notice. I have received your notice today. I will take your 28 days’ notice effective from today and your last day at the property would be 15 Feb 2025.”
The landlord sought the amount of rent arrears to 15 February 2025 in the sum of $1682.86 and provided a rent summary to that date.
The tenant pointed out that the end date of 15 February 2025 given by the landlord was more than five weeks after 9 January 2025 which is in excess of the 28-day notice period.
The landlord subsequently amended the amount sought to $1140.00 to 5 February 2025.
I find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: (a)The landlord acknowledged that the tenant had given notice on 15 November he did not wish to continue with the tenancy as he states in the email to the tenant dated 9 January 2025 “You did say that you would like to move out, however, you had not issued your 28-day notice”. (b)The requirement under section 60A(2)(c) under the previous legislation was that the tenant must give written notice at least 28 days before the end of the tenancy of the intention not to continue. There is no specific requirement regarding the form of this. (c)I am satisfied that the tenant had informed the landlord in writing of his intention not to continue with the tenancy and that the landlord was aware of this as stated in his email to the tenant on 9 January 2025. (d)The landlord has provided no evidence that the tenant withdrew this intention, therefore the tenancy ended on 16 January 2025. (e)For all of the above reasons I find on the evidence before me that the landlord has failed to prove the claim for $1140.00 in rent arrears to the required standard.
The fixed term tenancy ended on 16 January 2025 pursuant to the tenant’s notice of intention not to continue the tenancy. According to the rent summary there is one unpaid rent day to that date and the tenant is ordered to pay $54.28.

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.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: In late November 2024 there was a flood at the premises causing water damage. The damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord claimed that the damage was intentional and stated that the tenant fell asleep when the shower was running.
The landlord seeks reimbursement of $5000.00 insurance excess and the building manager callout fee of $348.59 for the losses from the damage.
The tenant does not dispute that there was flood damage but claims that it was careless. He stated that he suffers from allergies and took some antihistamine and then went and sat in the shower. He fell asleep and was woken by the building manager who entered his room after reports of water coming from the apartment.
The tenant claims that as the damage was careless, he should either be liable for the water damage excess which is recorded on his tenancy agreement as $1000.00 or if the Tribunal accepts the excess is $5000.00 a maximum of four weeks rent being $1520.00.
The landlord must include in the tenancy agreement the following information about insurance of the premises: (a)if the premises are not insured, a statement that they are not insured; and (b)if the premises are insured, a statement— (i)setting out, for each insurance policy that is relevant to the tenant’s liability for destruction of or damage to the premises, the amount of each excess that is relevant (if any) to that liability; and (ii)informing the tenant that a copy of the policy is available to the tenant on request (except that the statement need not inform the tenant of this if the landlord has already provided to the tenant a copy of the policy in accordance with section 45(2B) or 66J(5)).
The landlord included a statement in the tenancy agreement which set out that the landlord had insurance and the excesses as follows: Is the property insured? ✔ Yes No Tenants may request a copy of the policy/policies. Insurance type (e.g. Dwelling Insurance) Material Damage Excess information Tenanted Units $400 Common Areas $400 Unoccupied Units $1,000 Water Damage $1,000 Methamphetamine Contamination $2,500
The landlord stated that the insurance company charged an excess of $5000 on the basis that the damage was deliberate. There is no evidence provided regarding how this conclusion was reached. No evidence of an investigation into the cause of the damage was provided.
The Tribunal must determine the claim on the evidence provided. The Tribunal has considered the evidence provided and the statements of both landlord and tenant that the damage was caused by the tenant falling asleep with the shower running. The Tribunal finds that there is insufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage was intentionally caused and finds on the evidence provided that the damage was carelessly caused.
The insurance excess for water damage recorded in the tenancy agreement is $1000.00.
As the Tribunal is required to order the tenant to pay the lesser of four weeks rent or the applicable insurance excess the maximum the Tribunal can order the tenant to pay is the excess of $1000.00 as recorded in the tenancy agreement for water damage. Therefore, the tenant is ordered to pay this amount. See section 49B (3) RTA. Filing fee/Suppression
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The applicant has applied for suppression. Both parties have had some success in these proceedings. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal finds that the interests of the parties outweigh the publication of their identities and grants suppression of all party identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204491 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204491 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions