What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300402 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 5300402?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,460.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Drawer Handle: $34.50 awarded to landlord; Walls: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $258.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300402?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300402?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12499105-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5300402 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 5300402?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,460.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Drawer Handle: $34.50 awarded to landlord; Walls: $862.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $258.08 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5300402?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5300402?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12499105-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300402 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5300402 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300402 — net $363.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 June 2025	$2,460.00	4. The landlord has filed an application seeking rent arrears, outstanding water rates and compensation for damage.
Water rates to 26 June 2025	$258.08	Water rates to 26 June 2025
Repairs: Kitchen drawer handle	$34.50	Repairs: Kitchen drawer handle
Repairs: Walls	$862.50	Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	claim for compensation is granted for 50% of the total invoice, which is $862.50. Filing fee & name suppression 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49A(…
Net award	$363.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$363.08

Claims and awards for application 5300402 — net $363.08 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 26 June 2025

Amount: $2,460.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 4. The landlord has filed an application seeking rent arrears, outstanding water rates and compensation for damage.

Water rates to 26 June 2025

Amount: $258.08
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates to 26 June 2025

Repairs: Kitchen drawer handle

Amount: $34.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Kitchen drawer handle

Repairs: Walls

Amount: $862.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Walls

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is removed as a tenant party to these proceedings.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $363.08 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 23 September 2025.
The tenancy began on 28 June 2024 and was a fixed-term tenancy ending on 26 June 2025. The tenants listed on the tenancy agreement are [The tenant/s]. A variation to the tenancy agreement was signed by all parties on 5 November 2024, removing [The tenant/s] as a tenant. The tenancy continued with [The tenant/s] remaining as tenants.
[The tenant/s] were friends at the beginning of the tenancy. Unfortunately, their friendship fell apart towards the end of the tenancy. [The tenant/s] physically left the premises around 11 April 2025 and claims she ceased being a tenant on this date.
The landlord has filed an application seeking rent arrears, outstanding water rates and compensation for damage. [The tenant/s] claims she should not have to pay anything. [The tenant/s] claims some of the damage is fair wear and tear. The issues I must determine are: a. Is [The tenant/s] a tenant? b. Is [The tenant/s] responsible for what happened at the tenancy address after she left the premises? c. Does the tenant owe rent arrears? d. Does the tenant owe outstanding water rates? e. Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises? f. Should the parties be granted name suppression? Standard of proof
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Is [The tenant/s] a tenant? The law
The starting point is that a fixed-term tenancy ends on the expiry of the fixed term however, a tenant may give notice to end a fixed-term tenancy if sections 56A, 59, 59A or 59B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) apply. 1 These sections relate to instances where the premises are unlawful, destroyed, uninhabitable or contaminated.
A tenant may also withdraw from a fixed-term tenancy by giving at least 2 days’ notice to the landlord if: 2 a. The notice is accompanied by qualifying evidence that either or both of the following apply: i. The tenant has been a victim of family violence while a tenant of the premises: ii. The tenant’s dependant has been a victim of family violence while residing at the premises with the tenant; and b. The notice is in the approved form and includes the prescribed information.
A tenant may also assign their tenancy with the prior written consent of the landlord and in accordance with any reasonable conditions attached to that consent by the landlord. 3 An assignment of a tenancy involves the tenant transferring their tenancy to someone else. Where there are multiple tenants listed on the tenancy agreement, an assignment might involve the departing tenant transferring their tenancy to the remaining tenant. Analysis
On 11 April 2025, [The tenant/s] sent the landlord a text message advising that an incident had occurred. [The tenant/s] states she is giving the landlord her notice and will no longer be living at the premises. [The tenant/s] mentions that 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 50(1)(a). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56B. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 43B(1). [The tenant/s] will be able to pay the rent moving forward with the assistance from family. [The tenant/s] also notes that [The tenant/s] was previously able to remove herself from the tenancy and asks the landlord to confirm the next steps.
None of sections 56A, 59, 59A or 59B RTA applied to allow [The tenant/s] to give notice to end the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] both gave evidence that there was a physical altercation between the two of them, which is why [The tenant/s] decided to leave the premises. [The tenant/s] might have been able to utilise the family violence provisions contained in section 56B RTA to withdraw from the tenancy, but she did not. No notice of withdrawal and qualifying evidence confirming [The tenant/s] had been a victim of family violence was given to the landlord.
[The tenant/s] message to the landlord appears to be an attempt to assign her tenancy to [The tenant/s] however, [The tenant/s] did not have the prior written consent of the landlord to do this.
For these reasons, I find [The tenant/s] did not lawfully end, withdraw or assign her tenancy. Therefore, she remained a tenant until the end of the tenancy on 26 June 2025. Is [The tenant/s] responsible for what happened at the tenancy address after she left the premises? The law
Where multiple tenants are named on a tenancy agreement, they are jointly and severally liable for the tenancy. This means each tenant is responsible for the entire tenancy agreement, not just their individual portion. A landlord may choose to pursue any or all of the tenants for any alleged breach of the tenancy agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986, regardless of who is actually at fault. Analysis
I have found that [The tenant/s] remained a tenant until the end of the tenancy on 26 June 2025. This means that [The tenant/s] is jointly and severally liable, together with [The tenant/s], for ensuring performance of all tenant obligations up to the end of the tenancy, irrespective of whether she was living at the premises or not. As I mentioned at the hearing, any disagreement between [The tenant/s] about who should pay what is not something the Tribunal can determine.

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

The landlord submitted a rent summary, which records rent arrears as being $2,460.00 up to the end of the tenancy on 26 June 2025.
I accept the landlord’s rent summary as accurate and find the tenant owes $2,460.00 in rent arrears.

Does the tenant owe outstanding water rates?

The landlord submitted a water invoice summary, together with copies of original invoices from Watercare. I accept these documents as accurate and find the tenant owes $258.08 in outstanding water rates invoices.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

The law

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. 4
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 5
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. 6
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 7 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 5 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 6 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(1).
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). 8
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). 9
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for the following damage: Analysis
The landlord gave evidence the premises were newly built at the beginning of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. The premises appear new and modern on the inside.
The landlord submitted invoices for $851.00 and $1,725.00. I discuss each invoice individually below. Invoice 1: $851.00
The landlord submitted an invoice for $851.00 to attend to the following repairs at the end of the tenancy. a. Reinstate kitchen drawer handle (x1): $34.50 (inc. GST) b. Tighten bedroom and living room door handles (x3): $103.50 (inc. GST) c. Repair loose window handles (x4): $184.00 (inc. GST) d. Repair the lock buttons on bedroom doors (x4): $230.00 (inc. GST) e. Replace extraction fan in the laundry (x1): $299.00 (inc. GST)
The landlord submitted a photograph of a kitchen drawer taken at the end of the tenancy with the handle removed. The tenant claims this was a maintenance issue at the premises, which they notified the landlord about during the tenancy. No evidence of this was submitted.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the kitchen drawer handle was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has no disproved liability.
In respect of all of the other items listed on the invoice, I find these to be fair wear and tear. This is because they are minor issues that are not indicative of carelessness or intentional damage in and of themselves. No evidence of unreasonable use of the door handles, window latches or extraction fan by the 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(a). 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(b). tenant was submitted by the landlord. Whilst the premises might have been new at the beginning of the tenancy, it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be a deterioration in their condition as a result of day-to-day living over a one year period. As his Honour Judge Thorburn held in Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore, 30 January 1996, [1996] RTHNZ 2, 1996 WL 35049225: Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition.
I consider things like loose door handles and window latches to be consistent with fair wear and tear, which a tenant is not responsible for. 10
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $34.50 (inc. GST) for the detached kitchen drawer handle. Invoice 2: $1,725.00
The landlord also claims the tenant is responsible for damaging the walls and doors inside the premises. The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,725.00 to repair and paint the walls and doors.
The photographs of the walls show some minor scratches and marks to the walls, which I consider to be fair wear and tear. Other items are indicative of careless or intentional damage such as, a large scratch mark to the bathroom door and a moderate scratch mark to the door in bedroom 2. The tenant has also attempted patch repairs to some of the walls throughout the premises however, the paint is in a different colour and the repair job is obvious. There are also some small drawings on the wall next to the internet router.
The tenant is responsible for repairing the damage to the doors and walls that is not fair wear and tear. From the photographs, it appears that the amount of damage that is fair wear and tear, compared to that which is not, is equally weighted. There also needs to be a small reduction for betterment and depreciation. The landlord must be returned to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. They must not be any better or worse off. Considering these factors, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for 50% of the total invoice, which is $862.50. Filing fee & name suppression 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49A(2).
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.
The tenant also seeks name suppression, which I have a discretion to grant under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The tenants are young and one of them has recently had a baby. They are concerned that publication of their name will be a black mark on their record and prospective landlords will be deterred from considering them as tenants.
I accept the tenant’s submission that they are likely to find it more difficult to find a tenancy because of their relatively young age and the fact that one of them has a young child. Publication of their name will most likely make this harder. On the other hand, there is a public interest in publication and prospective landlords knowing what occurred during this tenancy.
When weighing the tenant’s interests against the public’s interest, I must put the tenant’s conduct into a wider context. The fact that rent arrears and water rates invoices accrued seems to have been a direct result of the falling out between the tenants. Prior to this, their rent was paid on time every week. Therefore, I find the fact that rent was not paid in full towards the end of the tenancy was out of character for the tenant. Further, whilst the tenant is responsible for damaging the premises in some areas, the damage is relatively minor and the overall presentation of the premises at the end of the tenancy was good.
For these reasons, I find the tenant’s interest in suppression outweighs the public’s interest in publication.
The tenant’s application for name suppression is granted.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5300402 — net $363.08 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 26 June 2025	$2,460.00	4. The landlord has filed an application seeking rent arrears, outstanding water rates and compensation for damage.
Water rates to 26 June 2025	$258.08	Water rates to 26 June 2025
Repairs: Kitchen drawer handle	$34.50	Repairs: Kitchen drawer handle
Repairs: Walls	$862.50	Repairs: Walls
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	claim for compensation is granted for 50% of the total invoice, which is $862.50. Filing fee & name suppression 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49A(…
Net award	$363.08
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$363.08

Claims and awards for application 5300402 — net $363.08 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears to 26 June 2025

Amount: $2,460.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: 4. The landlord has filed an application seeking rent arrears, outstanding water rates and compensation for damage.

Water rates to 26 June 2025

Amount: $258.08
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates to 26 June 2025

Repairs: Kitchen drawer handle

Amount: $34.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Kitchen drawer handle

Repairs: Walls

Amount: $862.50
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Walls

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Filing Fee Rent arrears Property damage Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s and Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] is removed as a tenant party to these proceedings.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $363.08 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 23 September 2025.
The tenancy began on 28 June 2024 and was a fixed-term tenancy ending on 26 June 2025. The tenants listed on the tenancy agreement are [The tenant/s]. A variation to the tenancy agreement was signed by all parties on 5 November 2024, removing [The tenant/s] as a tenant. The tenancy continued with [The tenant/s] remaining as tenants.
[The tenant/s] were friends at the beginning of the tenancy. Unfortunately, their friendship fell apart towards the end of the tenancy. [The tenant/s] physically left the premises around 11 April 2025 and claims she ceased being a tenant on this date.
The landlord has filed an application seeking rent arrears, outstanding water rates and compensation for damage. [The tenant/s] claims she should not have to pay anything. [The tenant/s] claims some of the damage is fair wear and tear. The issues I must determine are: a. Is [The tenant/s] a tenant? b. Is [The tenant/s] responsible for what happened at the tenancy address after she left the premises? c. Does the tenant owe rent arrears? d. Does the tenant owe outstanding water rates? e. Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises? f. Should the parties be granted name suppression? Standard of proof
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Is [The tenant/s] a tenant? The law
The starting point is that a fixed-term tenancy ends on the expiry of the fixed term however, a tenant may give notice to end a fixed-term tenancy if sections 56A, 59, 59A or 59B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) apply. 1 These sections relate to instances where the premises are unlawful, destroyed, uninhabitable or contaminated.
A tenant may also withdraw from a fixed-term tenancy by giving at least 2 days’ notice to the landlord if: 2 a. The notice is accompanied by qualifying evidence that either or both of the following apply: i. The tenant has been a victim of family violence while a tenant of the premises: ii. The tenant’s dependant has been a victim of family violence while residing at the premises with the tenant; and b. The notice is in the approved form and includes the prescribed information.
A tenant may also assign their tenancy with the prior written consent of the landlord and in accordance with any reasonable conditions attached to that consent by the landlord. 3 An assignment of a tenancy involves the tenant transferring their tenancy to someone else. Where there are multiple tenants listed on the tenancy agreement, an assignment might involve the departing tenant transferring their tenancy to the remaining tenant. Analysis
On 11 April 2025, [The tenant/s] sent the landlord a text message advising that an incident had occurred. [The tenant/s] states she is giving the landlord her notice and will no longer be living at the premises. [The tenant/s] mentions that 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 50(1)(a). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56B. 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 43B(1). [The tenant/s] will be able to pay the rent moving forward with the assistance from family. [The tenant/s] also notes that [The tenant/s] was previously able to remove herself from the tenancy and asks the landlord to confirm the next steps.
None of sections 56A, 59, 59A or 59B RTA applied to allow [The tenant/s] to give notice to end the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] both gave evidence that there was a physical altercation between the two of them, which is why [The tenant/s] decided to leave the premises. [The tenant/s] might have been able to utilise the family violence provisions contained in section 56B RTA to withdraw from the tenancy, but she did not. No notice of withdrawal and qualifying evidence confirming [The tenant/s] had been a victim of family violence was given to the landlord.
[The tenant/s] message to the landlord appears to be an attempt to assign her tenancy to [The tenant/s] however, [The tenant/s] did not have the prior written consent of the landlord to do this.
For these reasons, I find [The tenant/s] did not lawfully end, withdraw or assign her tenancy. Therefore, she remained a tenant until the end of the tenancy on 26 June 2025. Is [The tenant/s] responsible for what happened at the tenancy address after she left the premises? The law
Where multiple tenants are named on a tenancy agreement, they are jointly and severally liable for the tenancy. This means each tenant is responsible for the entire tenancy agreement, not just their individual portion. A landlord may choose to pursue any or all of the tenants for any alleged breach of the tenancy agreement or Residential Tenancies Act 1986, regardless of who is actually at fault. Analysis
I have found that [The tenant/s] remained a tenant until the end of the tenancy on 26 June 2025. This means that [The tenant/s] is jointly and severally liable, together with [The tenant/s], for ensuring performance of all tenant obligations up to the end of the tenancy, irrespective of whether she was living at the premises or not. As I mentioned at the hearing, any disagreement between [The tenant/s] about who should pay what is not something the Tribunal can determine.

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

The landlord submitted a rent summary, which records rent arrears as being $2,460.00 up to the end of the tenancy on 26 June 2025.
I accept the landlord’s rent summary as accurate and find the tenant owes $2,460.00 in rent arrears.

Does the tenant owe outstanding water rates?

The landlord submitted a water invoice summary, together with copies of original invoices from Watercare. I accept these documents as accurate and find the tenant owes $258.08 in outstanding water rates invoices.

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

The law

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. 4
Fair wear and tear has been defined as the deterioration of premises due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. The amount of damage is not relevant. 5
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. 6
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 7 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B. 5 See discussion in Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403. 6 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 7 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(1).
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). 8
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). 9
The landlord claims the tenant is responsible for the following damage: Analysis
The landlord gave evidence the premises were newly built at the beginning of the tenancy. I accept the landlord’s evidence on this point. The premises appear new and modern on the inside.
The landlord submitted invoices for $851.00 and $1,725.00. I discuss each invoice individually below. Invoice 1: $851.00
The landlord submitted an invoice for $851.00 to attend to the following repairs at the end of the tenancy. a. Reinstate kitchen drawer handle (x1): $34.50 (inc. GST) b. Tighten bedroom and living room door handles (x3): $103.50 (inc. GST) c. Repair loose window handles (x4): $184.00 (inc. GST) d. Repair the lock buttons on bedroom doors (x4): $230.00 (inc. GST) e. Replace extraction fan in the laundry (x1): $299.00 (inc. GST)
The landlord submitted a photograph of a kitchen drawer taken at the end of the tenancy with the handle removed. The tenant claims this was a maintenance issue at the premises, which they notified the landlord about during the tenancy. No evidence of this was submitted.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the kitchen drawer handle was damaged during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has no disproved liability.
In respect of all of the other items listed on the invoice, I find these to be fair wear and tear. This is because they are minor issues that are not indicative of carelessness or intentional damage in and of themselves. No evidence of unreasonable use of the door handles, window latches or extraction fan by the 8 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(a). 9 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49B(3)(b). tenant was submitted by the landlord. Whilst the premises might have been new at the beginning of the tenancy, it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be a deterioration in their condition as a result of day-to-day living over a one year period. As his Honour Judge Thorburn held in Nixon v Geal-Otter DC North Shore, 30 January 1996, [1996] RTHNZ 2, 1996 WL 35049225: Adjudicators and the Court must be careful to recognise that in any tenancy there will be a deterioration of condition because of fair wear and tear. It can be no other way. Mere use of premises will by the law of inevitability produce a deterioration of condition.
I consider things like loose door handles and window latches to be consistent with fair wear and tear, which a tenant is not responsible for. 10
The landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for $34.50 (inc. GST) for the detached kitchen drawer handle. Invoice 2: $1,725.00
The landlord also claims the tenant is responsible for damaging the walls and doors inside the premises. The landlord submitted an invoice for $1,725.00 to repair and paint the walls and doors.
The photographs of the walls show some minor scratches and marks to the walls, which I consider to be fair wear and tear. Other items are indicative of careless or intentional damage such as, a large scratch mark to the bathroom door and a moderate scratch mark to the door in bedroom 2. The tenant has also attempted patch repairs to some of the walls throughout the premises however, the paint is in a different colour and the repair job is obvious. There are also some small drawings on the wall next to the internet router.
The tenant is responsible for repairing the damage to the doors and walls that is not fair wear and tear. From the photographs, it appears that the amount of damage that is fair wear and tear, compared to that which is not, is equally weighted. There also needs to be a small reduction for betterment and depreciation. The landlord must be returned to the same position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations. They must not be any better or worse off. Considering these factors, the landlord’s claim for compensation is granted for 50% of the total invoice, which is $862.50. Filing fee & name suppression 10 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 49A(2).
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.
The tenant also seeks name suppression, which I have a discretion to grant under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The tenants are young and one of them has recently had a baby. They are concerned that publication of their name will be a black mark on their record and prospective landlords will be deterred from considering them as tenants.
I accept the tenant’s submission that they are likely to find it more difficult to find a tenancy because of their relatively young age and the fact that one of them has a young child. Publication of their name will most likely make this harder. On the other hand, there is a public interest in publication and prospective landlords knowing what occurred during this tenancy.
When weighing the tenant’s interests against the public’s interest, I must put the tenant’s conduct into a wider context. The fact that rent arrears and water rates invoices accrued seems to have been a direct result of the falling out between the tenants. Prior to this, their rent was paid on time every week. Therefore, I find the fact that rent was not paid in full towards the end of the tenancy was out of character for the tenant. Further, whilst the tenant is responsible for damaging the premises in some areas, the damage is relatively minor and the overall presentation of the premises at the end of the tenancy was good.
For these reasons, I find the tenant’s interest in suppression outweighs the public’s interest in publication.
The tenant’s application for name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300402 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5300402 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Does the tenant owe outstanding water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the tenant owe rent arrears?

Does the tenant owe outstanding water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for damaging the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions