How much money was awarded in case 5259662?

Dehumidifier Hire For 5 Days: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $411.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $225.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259662?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259662?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12803226-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5259662?

Dehumidifier Hire For 5 Days: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $411.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $225.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5259662?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5259662?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12803226-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5259662 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5259662 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259662 — net $473.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 May 2025	$225.00	Rent arrears to 8 May 2025
Dehumidifier hire for 5 days	$300.00	Dehumidifier hire for 5 days
Repair ceiling of apartment underneath and paint	$411.25	Repair ceiling of apartment underneath and paint
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$473.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$473.25

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Hina Shingaki must pay [The landlord] $473.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the remainder of the bond of $490.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord] immediately and the landlord is to repay [other tenant’s name suppressed] the remaining $268.75 of her $490.00 bond. This bond has nothing to do with Hina Shingaki, who occupied the studio apartment under a separate tenancy agreement to [other tenant’s name suppressed].

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant and the Tribunal were assisted by a Japanese interpreter.

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

The tenant applied for refund of her full $490.00 bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 31 March 2025 pursuant to a fixed term tenancy agreement signed by both parties.

This fixed term tenancy agreement did not have an end date inserted into it prior to the parties signing it.

The tenant claims the tenancy was for an undefined period and that she was not required to give the landlord any set amount of notice. She gave the landlord notice on 17 April 2025 that she would move out in two weeks, being 1 May 2025.

The landlord provided evidence that he had advertised the studio apartment for a couple or two friends to rent for no less than 3 months under a fixed term tenancy and that he informed the tenant and her friend of this condition of the tenancy. Unusually, the landlord let the studio apartment to the tenant and her friend, [other tenant’s name suppressed], under two separate tenancy agreements. He states he did this as the tenant only wanted to stay for three months, whereas her friend had indicated she may want to stay longer than three months. The landlord made [other tenant’s name suppressed] tenancy agreement for a fixed term period of three months but did not put an end date in the tenant’s tenancy agreement. Nowhere in the tenancy agreement does it say that the tenancy has to be for a minimum of three months.

On 17 April 2025, when the landlord received the tenant’s two weeks’ notice, the parties engaged in text and email communications where the landlord confirmed that he had intended for the tenancy agreement to be fixed term for three months and had made a typographical error when he neglected to put an end date in the agreement. He fixed the error and resent the tenant a copy of the agreement with an end date of 30 June 2025. The tenant did not agree to this unilateral change to the tenancy agreement and did not sign the change. She did send the landlord and his wife some messages confirming she knew the tenancy was for a minimum of three months and agreeing to pay the two months rent unless the landlord found a new tenant to take over the rest of the fixed term period before 30 June 2025.

The tenant says she had never seen the advertisement, her friend had but had not told her they would be bound to the tenancy for a minimum of three months, the landlord had never told her about the minimum rental period, there was no end date in the tenancy agreement and not mention of the minimum rental period in the agreement. She says she only agreed to pay rent to 30 June 2025 as she felt intimidated by the landlord, who she says had started to harass her friend/the other tenant by asking her to move out into a one-person apartment he also owned or to give up her double bed to new tenants that wanted to move in and share the studio with her. The landlord says [other tenant’s name suppressed] refused to do either. The landlord also stated that he had asked the tenant to move out the day she gave notice as he had a potential tenant that needed urgent accommodation that day, but the tenant refused to move out into temporary accommodation as she was out of Auckland at the time. The landlord saw this as obstructive conduct.

The landlord confirmed he did find two short term stay tenants. The first for 18 days from 10 to 18 May 2025 and the second for two weeks from 5 to 19 June 2025. The landlord argued the rent paid by these tenants should not be deducted from the 8 weeks rent he is claiming from the tenant as she “did nothing to help him find a new tenant” and “he did not live locally and had incurred a lot of petrol and other costs for viewings of potential tenants”.

I am satisfied that the parties agreed to a periodic tenancy when the landlord failed to record an end date in the tenancy agreement and that the tenant was required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to give the landlord 21-day notice when she ended the tenancy. 21 days from 17 April 2025 is 8 May 2025. The tenant paid rent to 1 May 2025. I award the landlord the 7 days rent to 8 May 2025, being $225.00.

I find the tenancy ended on 8 May 2025. 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?

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 claims the tenant failed to check the shower drain to ensure it was free from blockages before she took a shower, around 5 days into the tenancy, after being told by the landlord to do so to avoid any unnecessary flooding of the apartment. He says she did not do so and when the shower drain blocked and flooded the apartment bathroom and carpet, she failed to do anything to stop the water going down into the apartment below and causing flood related damage to its ceiling.

The parties confirmed that the tenant did not put down any towels or the like to soak up the flood water when she noticed the flooding. Instead, she put baking soda on it for a reason she did not explain. Baking soda would not absorb the flood water and stop further damage to the tenant’s apartment or the apartment below.

The tenant stated that the leak did not come from the shower but from another drain in the bathroom. The landlord confirmed that when he went to the apartment the next day the shower tray was still filled with water and the shower drain was blocked with hair. The building manager notified the landlord of the flood when the tenants below called him about the water dripping through the ceiling. The landlord then text the tenant and after she had finished her shower she text and called him back.

The landlord says the damage to the carpet and the apartment below’s ceiling is not fair wear and tear but the result of the tenant’s careless acts or omissions. Specifically, that she took no reasonable steps to stop the water from continuing to soak through the floor to the ceiling of the apartment below overnight until the landlord could get to the premise at 8am the next day with a dehumidifier to help remove the water from the carpet and to place towels on the wet carpet to soak up the water. The baking soda had done nothing to mitigate further damage from the flooding.

The tenant says there must have been a lack of maintenance for the shower trap to block so fast and that she should not be responsible for the cost of hiring the dehumidifier for five days or for the repair and paint of the other apartment’s ceiling. Further, the tenant says there was no hair trap to be cleaned out just the shower drain hole.

The landlord confirmed he had cleaned the shower trap and put drain cleaner down it before the tenancy started and after the flooding incident and that he had found that tenants with longer hair often had issues with blockages that could be avoided by checking the shower trap before each shower.

I am satisfied that the tenant was told to clean the shower trap after each shower for a reason and did not do so. No showers in New Zealand have specific hair traps in them and some block up easier than others and after 5 days there could have been enough of build-up of hair to cause the flood. More importantly to my decision is the fact the tenant did not take reasonable steps to soak up the water after the leak was discovered. This caused additional damage that may have been averted had the tenant placed towels on the flooded carpet and tried to do what she could to stop further water leaking into the apartment below. It would have been evidence to the tenant that applying baking soda to the wet carpet did nothing to soak up the water that had penetrated the carpet and underlay.

I find that the cost of the damage to the ceiling of the apartment below and the of the hire of the dehumidifier, to help dry out the tenant’s apartment, are costs for which the tenant is liable as the damage was created by her careless omission in that she did not try to soak up the water with towels as soon as she discovered the flood. Had she done so, the need for the dehumidifier may have been reduced and the damage to the apartment below lessened.

I am also satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Further, I find that [other tenant’s name suppressed] was at work at the time of the flood and cannot be held responsible for not checking the shower trap before showering nor for the tenant’s failure to put down towels to absorb the flood water immediately upon discovering the flooding.

The amounts ordered are proved.

I have considered 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 have considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Reimbursement of the filing fee

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.

Because [The applicant] has substantially succeeded with his claims I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Because the tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded with her claims her application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression

The landlord applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The landlord has substantially succeeded in its proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Non-publication is ordered.

The tenant has also applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details.

The tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded with her claim. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant’s conduct in this matter because she did not take urgent steps to soak up the flood water with towels and exacerbated the damage to the apartment below.

The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed for the reasons set out above.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5259662 — net $473.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 8 May 2025	$225.00	Rent arrears to 8 May 2025
Dehumidifier hire for 5 days	$300.00	Dehumidifier hire for 5 days
Repair ceiling of apartment underneath and paint	$411.25	Repair ceiling of apartment underneath and paint
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$473.25
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$473.25

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

Hina Shingaki must pay [The landlord] $473.25 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenant and the Tribunal were assisted by a Japanese interpreter.

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

The tenant applied for refund of her full $490.00 bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy commenced on 31 March 2025 pursuant to a fixed term tenancy agreement signed by both parties.

This fixed term tenancy agreement did not have an end date inserted into it prior to the parties signing it.

I find the tenancy ended on 8 May 2025. 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 amounts ordered are proved.

Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.

Because [The applicant] has substantially succeeded with his claims I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Because the tenant has not wholly or substantially succeeded with her claims her application for reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed. Name suppression

The landlord applies for non-publication of his name and identifying details.

Non-publication is ordered.

The tenant has also applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details.

The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed for the reasons set out above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259662 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5259662 — Property damage

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