What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328981 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 5328981?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328981?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328981?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12458016-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328981 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 5328981?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328981?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328981?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12458016-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Granny Flat, 142 Main Road, Lower Hutt, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328981 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant name and identifying details.
The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat Granny Flat, 142 Main Road, Lower Hutt, Wellington 5014 is terminated, and possession is granted to Hemant Krishna Raj, Sujatha Krishna Raj and Keshav Raj, on 26 September 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Hemant Krishna Raj, Sujatha Krishna Raj and Keshav Raj immediately.
[The tenant/s] are to pay the debt in order 4 at the rate of $50 per week.
The first payment must be made on or before 29 September 2025 and payments must continue every Monday until the debt is paid in full.
If [The tenant/s] fail to make any payment within 2 working days of the due date, the balance of the debt owing will be payable immediately and can be enforced through the District Court.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The parties commenced a 12-month fixed term tenancy on 15 February 2025. In late June [The tenant/s] attempted to give notice to leave as their circumstances had changed. The Rajs advised them that they needed to pay for advertising for a new tenant and to continue to pay the rent until a new tenancy commenced. 1
[The tenant/s] moved out in mid-August and ceased paying rent.
On 19 September the Rajs applied to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy on the basis of rent arrears and for costs associated with ending the tenancy early, along with compensation for harassment and threats.
The Rajs agree to pay the carpet cleaning invoice and final electricity bill, as such I make these orders by consent. They dispute the other claims. I therefore consider each claim separately below bearing in mind the burden of proof which lies with the applicant and is the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Rajs completed an application form to the Tribunal seeking termination of the tenancy on the basis of rent arrears. As the rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, the tenancy must be terminated pursuant to section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Accordingly, I make the order applied for.

How much is owed for rent?

The landlord’s rent records are consented to by [Tenant 1]. Accordingly, the amount claimed in rent arrears is made as sought.
I do note that [Tenant 1] explained that he was not aware that a fixed term tenancy could not be ended by notice as that is not the process in his home country. He did however sign the tenancy agreement which clearly explains the 1 By email 2 and 3 July implications of agreeing to a fixed term. He was also advised of these by the Rajs when he attempted to give notice.
He further explains that their circumstances changed to such an extent that they had no choice but to leave the tenancy. Undoubtedly that is the case and I empathise with the situation [The tenant/s] are in. However, in order to end a fixed term tenancy in such circumstances, tenants are required to either come to an agreement with their landlord or apply to the Tribunal for such an order pursuant to section 66 of the RTA. They did not do the latter and the former was contingent upon a replacement tenancy being sought.
Therefore, although unfortunately this debt will be significant for [The tenant/s], they are legally obliged to pay it.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord seeks compensation for having to repair the shower and front door. They say the damage occurred because the tenants let a number of people use the property while they were overseas for a month. This overuse they say resulted in the damage which cost them $345 to repair.
They also seek reimbursement of the $540 it cost them to have the gas hob replaced after one of the ignitors was found loose at the end of the tenancy.
To be successful in such a claim, 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. Shower
It is not in dispute that the shower commenced leaking. [Tenant 1] says it started after he returned from [Country] in April. His boarder, [Boarder] 2 says it started before the trip, a few weeks into the tenancy.
The Rajs say that as the shower was new with the tenancy 3 the leak must have been the tenants’ fault. They say that while they were away in [Country] 4 they let multiple people use the house and it was this overuse that has resulted in the damage. They say the builder did not explain why it happened but that it was outside of the warranty. 2 Who gave oral evidence 3 This was a new build 4 Between March and April
As above, the evidential standard is the balance of probabilities, or put another way, what is more likely than not. The applicant is required to discharge this burden, or their claim must be dismissed.
No evidence has been tended to explain why the shower was leaking. The Raj’s suspicion that [The tenant/s] let numerous people use the property in their absence I consider is unfounded. I prefer [Tenant 1] and [Boarder]’s evidence that one person stayed one night, and a friend visited regularly but only to check up on the house and collect items. Even had others used the shower, there is no evidence to suggest that this would create a leak.
As discussed at the hearing, tenants are entitled to live peacefully and normally in their rented homes. 5 This means they are allowed to have friends to stay for short periods and they are not lawfully required to contract security guards to protect their homes when they are away.
Therefore, as there is no evidence as to what was wrong with the shower or that the tenants or their friends caused any damage to the shower which may not have been fitted correctly given its new installation, this claim must be dismissed. Door
The Rajs say the door lock was broken which again must have been caused by [The tenant/s] allowing multiple people to use the house. [Tenant 1] and [Boarder] both say the door was sticking from the outset and they advised the Rajs of this.
There is no evidence of what was actually wrong with the door therefore it cannot be established that the tenants did something to break it. I find it more likely that it had not been fitted correctly given this was such a new build and the problem was there from the beginning. As the claim has not been established in evidence, it must be dismissed. Hob
The Rajs say that when they conducted the exit inspection, they noticed that two of the hob covers had been moved around and the ignitor on one was loose. They had the hob replaced under warranty however the cost of the removal and install was not covered. They therefore seek reimbursement of this cost. They consider it likely that the ignitor was damaged with rough cleaning.
[Tenant 1] and [Boarder] say they did not know it was damaged and were careful in their cleaning. They have no idea how it became loose. 5 See section 38 RTA
Given the hob covers had been moved around, I find it more likely than not that the ignitor did become loose due to rough cleaning. This is careless damage which means the tenants are liable for the repair.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent; see section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The Raj’s insurance excess is $500; accordingly [The tenant/s] are liable for $500 of the claim.

Did the tenants harass or threaten the landlords?

Mr and Mrs Raj say that [The tenant/s] harassed them and threatened them. They seek $3,000 compensation for this. Their examples of such behaviour are that they came to their house once late at night to say they were leaving the tenancy. They said they would throw away the keys if they did not take them when they left. They sought to end the tenancy early and were not respectful during the process.
[Tenant 1] denies these allegations. He says he called and asked if he could come over when he wished to give notice and that was agreed to. 6 He says they were respectful throughout and never made any threats.
I have carefully read all of the email communications between the parties. In conjunction with observing [Tenant 1]’s demeanour at the hearing in contrast to the Raj’s, I prefer [Tenant 1]’s evidence.
I therefore do not find the claim substantiated and as such it is dismissed.

Should the tenants pay compensation for abandoning the tenancy?

Mr and Mrs Raj seek $1,500 compensation on the basis that [The tenant/s] have abandoned the tenancy.
I am not satisfied that [The tenant/s] have actually abandoned the tenancy. They asked to end it early and the Rajs agreed provided a replacement tenancy could be sourced. They have ceased paying rent because their money is needed elsewhere, but they have also been advertising for new tenants.
On 4 July the Rajs confirmed by email they would advertise the tenancy [online] but they did not. Although they have advertised within their community this does not have such a wide-reaching audience as [online] does. They therefore could have mitigated their costs earlier by advertising fully as they had said they would. 6 Mr Raj agrees
As such I do not consider an award of compensation just 7 and dismiss the claim. 7 See section 85 RTA Other orders
Because Hemant Krishna Raj, Sujatha Krishna Raj, Keshav Raj have substantially succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A of the RTA requires the Tribunal to supress a party’s name or identifying details if that party was “wholly or substantially” successful and allows discretion whilst weighing up the parties’ interests and the public interest.
[The tenant/s] seek suppression, the Rajs do not.
As [The tenant/s] were successful in defending a number of the claims and have consented to others, I consider it just to approve their application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328981 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Granny Flat, 142 Main Road, Lower Hutt,

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328981 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Granny Flat, 142 Main Road, Lower Hutt,

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants harass or threaten the landlords?

Should the tenants pay compensation for abandoning the tenancy?

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for rent?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenants harass or threaten the landlords?

Should the tenants pay compensation for abandoning the tenancy?