What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5258084 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 5258084?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,042.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258084?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258084?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12294021-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5258084 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 5258084?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,042.85 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5258084?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5258084?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12294021-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5258084 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5258084 — net $1,469.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,042.85	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,469.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,469.85

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Zara Marie Gillard at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm on Tuesday 26 August 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Zara Marie Gillard must pay [The landlord/s] $1,469.85 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. The Tribunal is not required to make a finding on who is telling the truth, simply whether it is more likely than not that what is alleged to have occurred, did occur and that it is a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT 233/02 Judge Mather stated; “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy will be $3,042.85.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 landlord says that the following damage was caused during the tenancy. A bathroom vanity was damaged. The damage was caused accidentally. The tenant offered to purchase a replacement basin for the vanity. The landlord agreed. The tenant purchased a replacement vanity. The landlord did not consider the vanity to be of a similar type to the unit being replaced. The landlord has provided photos of both the damaged vanity and the proposed replacement. The only variation between the two basins is that one was for a single tap and the replacement unit a double tap, with ceramic caps to cover any holes. Having agreed to the tenant proposition that the vanity be replaced I consider that the landlord is not entitled to compensation simply because she did not like the proposed replacement. The application is dismissed. The landlord said that a hole was put in a bedroom wall. The tenant’s evidence was that the hole was present at the commencement of the tenancy and had previously been patched. I am not required to make a finding on liability as no invoice for any repairs has been provided by the landlord. The application for compensation is dismissed
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5258084 — net $1,469.85 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$3,042.85	Rent arrears
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,469.85
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,469.85

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Zara Marie Gillard at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11.59 pm on Tuesday 26 August 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Zara Marie Gillard must pay [The landlord/s] $1,469.85 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. The Tribunal is not required to make a finding on who is telling the truth, simply whether it is more likely than not that what is alleged to have occurred, did occur and that it is a breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT 233/02 Judge Mather stated; “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation and refund of the bond.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy will be $3,042.85.

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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 landlord says that the following damage was caused during the tenancy. A bathroom vanity was damaged. The damage was caused accidentally. The tenant offered to purchase a replacement basin for the vanity. The landlord agreed. The tenant purchased a replacement vanity. The landlord did not consider the vanity to be of a similar type to the unit being replaced. The landlord has provided photos of both the damaged vanity and the proposed replacement. The only variation between the two basins is that one was for a single tap and the replacement unit a double tap, with ceramic caps to cover any holes. Having agreed to the tenant proposition that the vanity be replaced I consider that the landlord is not entitled to compensation simply because she did not like the proposed replacement. The application is dismissed. The landlord said that a hole was put in a bedroom wall. The tenant’s evidence was that the hole was present at the commencement of the tenancy and had previously been patched. I am not required to make a finding on liability as no invoice for any repairs has been provided by the landlord. The application for compensation is dismissed
As [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim, I have ordered the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258084 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5258084 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions