What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5252342 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 5252342?

Body Corporate Charges - CCTV Camera…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Body Corporate Charges - Smoke Detec…: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $346.97 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lock Smith Cost: $235.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,234.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5252342?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5252342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12242841-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5252342 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 5252342?

Body Corporate Charges - CCTV Camera…: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Body Corporate Charges - Smoke Detec…: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $575.00 awarded to landlord; Electricity: $346.97 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Lock Smith Cost: $235.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,234.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5252342?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5252342?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12242841-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5252342 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5252342 — net $2,779.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at end of tenancy	$1,234.28	Rent arrears as at end of tenancy
Electricity	$346.97	Electricity
Door repairs	$460.00	Door repairs
Lock Smith cost	$235.75	Lock Smith cost
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Body Corporate charges - Smoke detector	$1,000.00	Body Corporate charges - Smoke detector
Body Corporate charges - CCTV camera and Smoke detector	$500.00	Body Corporate charges - CCTV camera and Smoke detector
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,779.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,779.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
Materoa Riria Hape must pay [The landlord/s] $2,779.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears as at end of tenancy$1,234.28 Electricity$346.97 Door repairs$460.00 Lock Smith cost$235.75 Cleaning$575.00 Body Corporate charges - Smoke detector$1,000.00 Body Corporate charges - CCTV camera and Smoke detector $500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,379.00 Minus bond-$1,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,779.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The tenancy has ended, and the landlord now seeks a range of costs against the tenant.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, in that the hearing notice was sent to the tenant by email at the address for service recorded for the tenant on the tenancy agreement. I will therefore proceed to consider the claim in the tenant’s absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 13 December 2022. The sole tenant is Materoa Riria Hape.
The landlord states that the tenant terminated the tenancy on 26 October 2024, but possession was not returned at that time because the tenant’s partner was still living in the premises, and was so for some two weeks further.
The landlord now brings this claim for costs.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears b. Electricity costs c. Door repair d. Cleaning and rubbish removal e. Body Corporate charges for damage f. Bond release

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 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 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 – Rent arrears

The landlord seeks rent arrears until the date possession was returned to the landlord, being the sum of $1,234.28. The rent ledger has been provided, setting out the amount of rent owed at the premises at the end of the tenancy. Analysis
The landlord has established the amount of rent owed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. This is ordered in full. Claim 2 - Electricity
The landlord seeks an order for power used at the premises, the power was metered and charged by the Body Corporate. The landlord has claimed $346.97, being the power consumed for these premises from June 2024. Analysis
Tenants are liable for the cost of utilities used during the tenancy, such as electricity. This claim has been established and is ordered in full. Claim 3 – Door damage
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the door of this unit, which was broken at the end of the tenancy. The locksmith cost being $235.75 and $460.00 charged for repairs, including repainting and door repairs by the body corporate. Analysis
When damage occurs during a tenancy, the landlord must prove that the damage was not fair wear and tear. Once that is established, the tenant must prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage to escape liability.
In this case, the landlord has provided a photograph which shows considerable damage around the lock mechanism, entirely consistent with the door being forced open. The tenant has not proven that the damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. Based on the photographs it would most likely be intentional damage. This claim is established and is ordered in full to the extent of the invoice provided. Claim 4 – Cleaning and rubbish
The landlord states that the premises were unclean at the end of the tenancy, with a range of goods abandoned. The carpets were unclean, and considerable cleaning was required. A commercial cleaning was undertaken to the cost of $575.00 supported by an invoice provided to the Tribunal. Analysis
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return the premises to the landlord reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant did not achieve that required standard. I have considered the photographs provided, and they demonstrate a tenancy that was very dirty; there was a reasonable range of goods present around the premises that would have required disposal. Having considered the photographs, I consider the amount charged by the commercial cleaner would be reasonable, and that is ordered in full. Claim 6 – Body Corporate charges
The landlord claims charges raised by the Body Corporate, for the tenant tampering with the smoke detector on two occasions, one covering the smoke detector (19 September 2024), and the second pulling out the smoke detector wires so it did not function (29 September 2024). The landlord states that the damage was in the area in front of the unit, shared with another unit, but the tenant’s partner was seen on camera damaging the unit. The landlord states that the video was provided to the tenant and the landlord has also reviewed it. The landlord states that the building manager was familiar with the tenant’s partner, therefore linking the damage seen on the camera footage to the tenant. The landlord claims the cost charged by the body corporate in relation to the damage, which was. $1,000.00, supported by an invoice provided to the Tribunal.
The landlord also seeks costs for the partner damaging the security camera on a different day and tampering with the smoke detector, and again that was recorded by the camera. The landlord confirms seeing that on the video footage. Again an invoice has been provided by the body corporate for this damage, which was. $500.00. Analysis
As set out above, when damage occurs during the Tenancy, the tenant must approve that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, otherwise the tenant will be liable for that damage. Tenants are liable for damage caused at the Tenancy either by themselves or a person on the tenancy with their consent as will be the case here. The tenant has not disputed liability, and the damage is almost certainly in the intentional category, so the full amount of the claim is ordered. Claim 7 – Bond
Because the landlord has been successful in the claim, the bond is to be released to the landlord in full. Claim - 8 Filing fee
Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has been wholly successful as requests suppression, which is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5252342 — net $2,779.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears as at end of tenancy	$1,234.28	Rent arrears as at end of tenancy
Electricity	$346.97	Electricity
Door repairs	$460.00	Door repairs
Lock Smith cost	$235.75	Lock Smith cost
Cleaning	$575.00	Cleaning
Body Corporate charges - Smoke detector	$1,000.00	Body Corporate charges - Smoke detector
Body Corporate charges - CCTV camera and Smoke detector	$500.00	Body Corporate charges - CCTV camera and Smoke detector
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,779.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,779.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
Materoa Riria Hape must pay [The landlord/s] $2,779.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. DescriptionLandlord Rent arrears as at end of tenancy$1,234.28 Electricity$346.97 Door repairs$460.00 Lock Smith cost$235.75 Cleaning$575.00 Body Corporate charges - Smoke detector$1,000.00 Body Corporate charges - CCTV camera and Smoke detector $500.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$4,379.00 Minus bond-$1,600.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$2,779.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord against the tenant. The tenancy has ended, and the landlord now seeks a range of costs against the tenant.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, in that the hearing notice was sent to the tenant by email at the address for service recorded for the tenant on the tenancy agreement. I will therefore proceed to consider the claim in the tenant’s absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy commenced on 13 December 2022. The sole tenant is Materoa Riria Hape.
The landlord states that the tenant terminated the tenancy on 26 October 2024, but possession was not returned at that time because the tenant’s partner was still living in the premises, and was so for some two weeks further.
The landlord now brings this claim for costs.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Rent arrears b. Electricity costs c. Door repair d. Cleaning and rubbish removal e. Body Corporate charges for damage f. Bond release

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 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 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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

Claim 1 – Rent arrears

The landlord seeks rent arrears until the date possession was returned to the landlord, being the sum of $1,234.28. The rent ledger has been provided, setting out the amount of rent owed at the premises at the end of the tenancy. Analysis
The landlord has established the amount of rent owed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. This is ordered in full. Claim 2 - Electricity
The landlord seeks an order for power used at the premises, the power was metered and charged by the Body Corporate. The landlord has claimed $346.97, being the power consumed for these premises from June 2024. Analysis
Tenants are liable for the cost of utilities used during the tenancy, such as electricity. This claim has been established and is ordered in full. Claim 3 – Door damage
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the door of this unit, which was broken at the end of the tenancy. The locksmith cost being $235.75 and $460.00 charged for repairs, including repainting and door repairs by the body corporate. Analysis
When damage occurs during a tenancy, the landlord must prove that the damage was not fair wear and tear. Once that is established, the tenant must prove that the damage was not careless or intentional damage to escape liability.
In this case, the landlord has provided a photograph which shows considerable damage around the lock mechanism, entirely consistent with the door being forced open. The tenant has not proven that the damage is anything other than careless or intentional damage. Based on the photographs it would most likely be intentional damage. This claim is established and is ordered in full to the extent of the invoice provided. Claim 4 – Cleaning and rubbish
The landlord states that the premises were unclean at the end of the tenancy, with a range of goods abandoned. The carpets were unclean, and considerable cleaning was required. A commercial cleaning was undertaken to the cost of $575.00 supported by an invoice provided to the Tribunal. Analysis
At the end of the tenancy, the tenant must return the premises to the landlord reasonably clean and tidy. The tenant did not achieve that required standard. I have considered the photographs provided, and they demonstrate a tenancy that was very dirty; there was a reasonable range of goods present around the premises that would have required disposal. Having considered the photographs, I consider the amount charged by the commercial cleaner would be reasonable, and that is ordered in full. Claim 6 – Body Corporate charges
The landlord claims charges raised by the Body Corporate, for the tenant tampering with the smoke detector on two occasions, one covering the smoke detector (19 September 2024), and the second pulling out the smoke detector wires so it did not function (29 September 2024). The landlord states that the damage was in the area in front of the unit, shared with another unit, but the tenant’s partner was seen on camera damaging the unit. The landlord states that the video was provided to the tenant and the landlord has also reviewed it. The landlord states that the building manager was familiar with the tenant’s partner, therefore linking the damage seen on the camera footage to the tenant. The landlord claims the cost charged by the body corporate in relation to the damage, which was. $1,000.00, supported by an invoice provided to the Tribunal.
The landlord also seeks costs for the partner damaging the security camera on a different day and tampering with the smoke detector, and again that was recorded by the camera. The landlord confirms seeing that on the video footage. Again an invoice has been provided by the body corporate for this damage, which was. $500.00. Analysis
As set out above, when damage occurs during the Tenancy, the tenant must approve that the damage was not careless or intentional damage, otherwise the tenant will be liable for that damage. Tenants are liable for damage caused at the Tenancy either by themselves or a person on the tenancy with their consent as will be the case here. The tenant has not disputed liability, and the damage is almost certainly in the intentional category, so the full amount of the claim is ordered. Claim 7 – Bond
Because the landlord has been successful in the claim, the bond is to be released to the landlord in full. Claim - 8 Filing fee
Because the applicant has been wholly successful in their application, I must award the filing paid to commence the proceeding in the Tribunal.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has been wholly successful as requests suppression, which is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5252342 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5252342 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions