What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5337662 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 5337662?

Cleaning: $48.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $56.72 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $268.88 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $246.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337662?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337662?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12794168-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5337662 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 5337662?

Cleaning: $48.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $56.72 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $268.88 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $246.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5337662?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5337662?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12794168-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5337662 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5337662 — net $620.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: exterior	$268.88	Rubbish removal: exterior
Rubbish removal: interior	$246.32	Rubbish removal: interior
Cleaning of rangehood	$48.45	Cleaning of rangehood
Repairs	$56.72	Repairs
Net award	$620.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$620.37

Only the landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The amounts ordered above are proven. Although I did not have before me the entry report, I consider the extent of the cleaning and rubbish make it clear the only realistic inference is that the tenant was the party responsible for the need for cleaning and removal of rubbish.

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.

There was a hole in the wall at the end of the tenancy. I did not have the entry photos however I accept the landlord’s evidence that it does not provide premise to tenants with existing holes, and therefore the hole can only have been placed there by the tenant.

The amount ordered is proven.

I note that all other claims applied for by the landlord were withdrawn at the hearing. Application for name suppression of the tenant

The landlord applies for name suppression of the tenant.

Section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides: The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.

I cannot do better to summarise the relevant law that applies by referring to the very well written decision of Adjudicator Woodhouse in Kainga Ora v Rangitakatu. 1

Adjudicator Woodhouse commenced his decision in that case by observing that: 2 There is a statutory expectation in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) that decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal are published on an internet site as soon as practicable, unless there is good reason not to publish. 3 1 [2021] NZTT Porirua 4309535 2 At [6] and [7] 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, Section 115B. In 2020 Parliament introduced changes to the RTA to provide an ability for the Tribunal to order name suppression, with the new suppression provision introduced at section 95A. 4

To set the scene, he then traversed the history of s 95A and the general law regarding name suppression, noting the principle of open justice, a principle which dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case “except in very special circumstances”. 5

He referred to the High Court decision of Lewis v Wilson & Horton, 6 where the Court confirmed the question then becomes whether the facts in the case are sufficient to displace the presumption of open reporting, so as to support name suppression. He then referred to G v Attorney General, 7 where Hansen J described name suppression in civil cases as “rare”.

Should name suppression be ordered in favour of the tenant?

The question is whether, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, I should order that the name of the tenant not be published.

The tenant herself has not sought name suppression.

The debt is small. Much of the claim has been withdrawn by the landlord at the hearing. The tenant did not appear and may well have been able to negotiate a resolution, had she known the claim would reduce in amount by the hearing.

This case is unlike others I have seen where name suppression is sought on behalf of tenants but no supporting evidence is offered.

Here, the landlord submits the tenant is young and that there was a reported break-in at the property which caused her not to return and remedy the issues that lead to this application

There is a public interest in publication of orders where a party has simply not paid a debt. 4 Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2020. 5 See Victim X v Television New Zealand Ltd 1973 NZLR 220. 6 [2000] 3 NZLR 546 7 High Court Dunedin, CP 57/96 15.4.99

Having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, I consider however that in the unique circumstances of this case, the name of the tenant should not be published. I accept the landlord’s submissions.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5337662 — net $620.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal: exterior	$268.88	Rubbish removal: exterior
Rubbish removal: interior	$246.32	Rubbish removal: interior
Cleaning of rangehood	$48.45	Cleaning of rangehood
Repairs	$56.72	Repairs
Net award	$620.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$620.37

Only the landlord attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The amount ordered is proven.

I note that all other claims applied for by the landlord were withdrawn at the hearing. Application for name suppression of the tenant

The landlord applies for name suppression of the tenant.

I cannot do better to summarise the relevant law that applies by referring to the very well written decision of Adjudicator Woodhouse in Kainga Ora v Rangitakatu. 1

Should name suppression be ordered in favour of the tenant?

The question is whether, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, I should order that the name of the tenant not be published.

The tenant herself has not sought name suppression.

This case is unlike others I have seen where name suppression is sought on behalf of tenants but no supporting evidence is offered.

Here, the landlord submits the tenant is young and that there was a reported break-in at the property which caused her not to return and remedy the issues that lead to this application

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337662 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5337662 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should name suppression be ordered in favour of the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should name suppression be ordered in favour of the tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions