What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5207315 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5207315?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $207.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5207315?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5207315?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11844302-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5207315 about?

The tribunal order states: Suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5207315?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $207.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5207315?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5207315?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11844302-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

10A Goodman Drive, Motueka, Motueka 7120 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5207315 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5207315 — net $234.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/9/2024 ( credited	$207.14	Rent arrears to 28/9/2024 ( credited
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$234.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$234.14

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.

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

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord is seeking $550.00 insurance excess for a replacement stove top.

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 tenant denies knowing anything about damage to the stove top and says they received their full bond months ago with no issues. The tenant says they paid $50.00 towards the stove top because the landlord told them to, but they stopped after getting advice.

I acknowledge that the stove top was new at the start of the tenancy and appears to have a scratch at the end of the tenancy. However, this does not amount to more than fair wear and tear. The landlord does not dispute that the stove top was in working order at the end of the tenancy therefore I find it likely that the scratch or mark is only cosmetic. I have also taken into account that the photograph provided by the landlord was not taken until 12 days after the tenancy ended and no issues were raised at the final inspection.

The claim is not proved to the requisite standard (on the balance of probabilities) and is therefore dismissed.

I have credited the $50.00 paid by the tenant to the outstanding rent arrears.

As the landlord has been partly successful, the tenant must pay the filing fee. Name suppression

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 (section 95A(4) RTA).

I find that this is an appropriate case to apply name suppression for the tenant. The claim was not made until some 6 months after the end of the tenancy. I accept that the landlord only recently discovered some minor rent arrears and what they believed to be damage. However, it is also not disputed that the tenant was told at the last inspection there were no issues, and the bond was refunded in full.

Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, on balance I find that in the particular circumstances of this case, the tenant considerations outweigh other considerations as it may go against them for future tenancies if their names were published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5207315 — net $234.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 28/9/2024 ( credited	$207.14	Rent arrears to 28/9/2024 ( credited
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$234.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$234.14

Order

Suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Summit Property Management Limited $234.14 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 28 September 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord is seeking $550.00 insurance excess for a replacement stove top.
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 tenant denies knowing anything about damage to the stove top and says they received their full bond months ago with no issues. The tenant says they paid $50.00 towards the stove top because the landlord told them to, but they stopped after getting advice.
I acknowledge that the stove top was new at the start of the tenancy and appears to have a scratch at the end of the tenancy. However, this does not amount to more than fair wear and tear. The landlord does not dispute that the stove top was in working order at the end of the tenancy therefore I find it likely that the scratch or mark is only cosmetic. I have also taken into account that the photograph provided by the landlord was not taken until 12 days after the tenancy ended and no issues were raised at the final inspection.
The claim is not proved to the requisite standard (on the balance of probabilities) and is therefore dismissed.
I have credited the $50.00 paid by the tenant to the outstanding rent arrears.
As the landlord has been partly successful, the tenant must pay the filing fee. Name suppression
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 (section 95A(4) RTA).
I find that this is an appropriate case to apply name suppression for the tenant. The claim was not made until some 6 months after the end of the tenancy. I accept that the landlord only recently discovered some minor rent arrears and what they believed to be damage. However, it is also not disputed that the tenant was told at the last inspection there were no issues, and the bond was refunded in full.
Taking into consideration the parties’ interest, alongside that of the public interest, on balance I find that in the particular circumstances of this case, the tenant considerations outweigh other considerations as it may go against them for future tenancies if their names were published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5207315 — Rent arrears at 10A Goodman Drive, Motueka, Motueka 7120

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5207315 — Rent arrears at 10A Goodman Drive, Motueka, Motueka 7120

At a glance

Award balance

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

Award balance

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