What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338100 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 5338100?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Gas Bottle Refill: $27.28 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338100?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338100?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12891761-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338100 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 5338100?

Compensation: Loss Of Amenity: $300.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Gas Bottle Refill: $27.28 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,100.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338100?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338100?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12891761-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 6 Lynwood Terrace, Bishopdale, Nelson 7010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338100 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338100 — net $827.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,100.00		Rent arrears
Gas bottle refill	$27.28		Gas bottle refill
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: loss of amenity		$300.00	loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,155.28	$328.00
Net award	$827.28
Bond	$1,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$827.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.
[The tenant/s] to pay Glenn's Vacancies Limited As Agent For Paul Swift $827.28 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Glenn's Vacancies Limited As Agent For Paul Swift: $827.28 [The tenant/s]: $572.72
The remainder of the landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely by video.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for abatement of rent, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenant withdrew his claim for compensation for power use at the hearing.

How much is owed for rent ?

The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy starting on 9 October 2024 and was due to end on 8 October 2025. The tenancy ended early on 16 July 2025 as a result of an agreement between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepts he owes the amount of rent claimed.

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

The landlord claims the cost to refill the gas bottle at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepts it was his responsibility to fill the gas bottle and accepts the cost claimed.

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 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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Hot water cylinder leak causing damage to the carpet.
On 2 July 2025 the tenant texted the landlord that the hot water cylinder was leaking water. Water leaked onto the carpet, which required industrial fans to dry it out. The fans were in place from 2 July to 11 July.
The landlord’s plumber attended and advised the crox nut on the top of the cylinder was loose which was the reason the hot water cylinder leaked.
The tenant was unable to live in the property from 2 July to 5 July (ie 3 days/nights) due to the flood and the fans. The tenant could not afford to pay to stay anywhere else and had no where to stay other than on the floor of his restaurant. The tenant and his 5 year old son slept on the floor of the tenant’s restaurant for the nights they were not able to live in the premises. The landlord did not see that it was their responsibility to provide accommodation or a rent rebate for the time the tenant could not use the premises.
The landlord claims $850.10 for the insurance excess for drying out the carpets ($650.00) and the plumber’s cost to repair the cylinder ($200.10).
The tenant claims a rent rebate for the 3 nights he could not live at the premises ($150.00) and $600.00 in compensation for the hardship and inconvenience caused to him, and for his time emailing seeking a reduction in power costs and rent from the landlord for the time he could not live at the premises.
The landlord’s view is that the tenant loosened the crox nut and caused the flooding. The landlord believes this is the case as: a)there was no sign that the cylinder was leaking on 16 June 2025 when the landlord did an inspection of the property. That was the only time the landlord or any of the landlord’s agents had been in the property after 24 May 2025 when the landlord’s plumber had replaced the tempering value on the cylinder. The landlord believes that proves the tenant or someone in the property with the landlord’s permission must have loosened the valve. b)the tenant was having difficulty paying rent and the landlord believes was having other financial issues.
The tenant stated that he did not loosen the crox nut or do anything to the hot water cylinder. He believed the nut had come loose after the earlier repair work by the plumber as a result of vibration, or expansion and contraction from changes in the temperature of the water in the cylinder. The tenant said as soon as he woke on the morning of 2 July and found the flood he contacted the landlord. He said he had no reason to loosen the nut and cause disruption to his life as was caused as a result of the flood.
The Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards when assessing claims. That means that the applicant must provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to establish their claims to the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means what is claimed is proven to be more likely than not, or to put that another way, slightly over a 50% likelihood. Any claim that is not established to the balance of probabilities must be dismissed.
After considering the evidence in front of me I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant caused the flood by loosening the crox nut. I find the tenant’s evidence convincing and plausible that there was no reason for him to loosen the nut as the flood caused disruption and inconvenience to him. If the tenant intentionally had loosened the nut I would thought he would have done so at the end of the tenancy just before he moved out.
In making this finding I have taken into consideration the plumber’s written statement that: The leak is suspicious as the crox nut on the top outlet of the cylinder was extremely loose, with a lot of water coming out; as if someone had played with it. These nuts won’t come loose on their own.”
The plumber was not available during the hearing for me to ask questions of him. Accordingly I have given the plumber’s written statement less weight than if he had been available to give direct evidence and answer questions. I am left wondering whether the crox nut was tightened sufficiently by the plumber when he replaced the tempering valve in May 2025, and if it was not, whether it has loosened during that period. I find this is as much of a possibility as the tenant loosening the valve and therefore do not find the landlord has proven his claim.
Accordingly I find the tenant is entitled to compensation for loss of amenity. He was unable to live at the property from 2 to 4 July and was affected by the ongoing use of fans from 5 to 11 July.
The tenant has also claimed for his time to repeatedly contact the landlord for reimbursement. However landlords and tenants are required to take all reasonable steps to limit the mitigate or reduce their loss (see section 49, RTA). Therefore once the landlord had made it clear it was not going to compensate for this matter the tenant should have stopped texting and emailing and filed his claim for compensation. Accordingly I have not awarded any compensation for this reason.
I award $300.00 in compensation to the tenant for loss of amenity, which includes a rent rebate for 3 days at $50.00 a day. Is the tenant liable for costs incurred as a result of the fixed term tenancy ending early?
The landlord has claimed $162.97 for costs to let the premises for advertising and a credit check of the replacement tenant.
A landlord who agrees to an early termination of a fixed term tenancy is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenants any reasonable expenses incurred by the landlord in respect of the early termination. A landlord who seeks to recover such expenses from a tenant must first provide an itemised account of the expenses (see section 44A, RTA).
The landlord did not provide an itemised account of expenses to the tenant as required. This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Other matters
Reimbursement of filing fees: The landlord was partly successful in its claim and I award the filing fee to be reimbursed by the tenant. As the tenant was successful in his claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression: The landlord did not apply for suppression. The tenant has applied for suppression of his name. As the tenant has been successful in his claim suppression is granted.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5338100 — net $827.28 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears	$1,100.00		Rent arrears
Gas bottle refill	$27.28		Gas bottle refill
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Compensation: loss of amenity		$300.00	loss of amenity
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$1,155.28	$328.00
Net award	$827.28
Bond	$1,400.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$827.28

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.
[The tenant/s] to pay Glenn's Vacancies Limited As Agent For Paul Swift $827.28 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Glenn's Vacancies Limited As Agent For Paul Swift: $827.28 [The tenant/s]: $572.72
The remainder of the landlord’s claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely by video.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant has applied for abatement of rent, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee. The tenant withdrew his claim for compensation for power use at the hearing.

How much is owed for rent ?

The tenancy was a fixed term tenancy starting on 9 October 2024 and was due to end on 8 October 2025. The tenancy ended early on 16 July 2025 as a result of an agreement between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepts he owes the amount of rent claimed.

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

The landlord claims the cost to refill the gas bottle at the end of the tenancy. The tenant accepts it was his responsibility to fill the gas bottle and accepts the cost claimed.

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 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.
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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: Hot water cylinder leak causing damage to the carpet.
On 2 July 2025 the tenant texted the landlord that the hot water cylinder was leaking water. Water leaked onto the carpet, which required industrial fans to dry it out. The fans were in place from 2 July to 11 July.
The landlord’s plumber attended and advised the crox nut on the top of the cylinder was loose which was the reason the hot water cylinder leaked.
The tenant was unable to live in the property from 2 July to 5 July (ie 3 days/nights) due to the flood and the fans. The tenant could not afford to pay to stay anywhere else and had no where to stay other than on the floor of his restaurant. The tenant and his 5 year old son slept on the floor of the tenant’s restaurant for the nights they were not able to live in the premises. The landlord did not see that it was their responsibility to provide accommodation or a rent rebate for the time the tenant could not use the premises.
The landlord claims $850.10 for the insurance excess for drying out the carpets ($650.00) and the plumber’s cost to repair the cylinder ($200.10).
The tenant claims a rent rebate for the 3 nights he could not live at the premises ($150.00) and $600.00 in compensation for the hardship and inconvenience caused to him, and for his time emailing seeking a reduction in power costs and rent from the landlord for the time he could not live at the premises.
The landlord’s view is that the tenant loosened the crox nut and caused the flooding. The landlord believes this is the case as: a)there was no sign that the cylinder was leaking on 16 June 2025 when the landlord did an inspection of the property. That was the only time the landlord or any of the landlord’s agents had been in the property after 24 May 2025 when the landlord’s plumber had replaced the tempering value on the cylinder. The landlord believes that proves the tenant or someone in the property with the landlord’s permission must have loosened the valve. b)the tenant was having difficulty paying rent and the landlord believes was having other financial issues.
The tenant stated that he did not loosen the crox nut or do anything to the hot water cylinder. He believed the nut had come loose after the earlier repair work by the plumber as a result of vibration, or expansion and contraction from changes in the temperature of the water in the cylinder. The tenant said as soon as he woke on the morning of 2 July and found the flood he contacted the landlord. He said he had no reason to loosen the nut and cause disruption to his life as was caused as a result of the flood.
The Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards when assessing claims. That means that the applicant must provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to establish their claims to the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means what is claimed is proven to be more likely than not, or to put that another way, slightly over a 50% likelihood. Any claim that is not established to the balance of probabilities must be dismissed.
After considering the evidence in front of me I am not satisfied that the landlord has proven that the tenant caused the flood by loosening the crox nut. I find the tenant’s evidence convincing and plausible that there was no reason for him to loosen the nut as the flood caused disruption and inconvenience to him. If the tenant intentionally had loosened the nut I would thought he would have done so at the end of the tenancy just before he moved out.
In making this finding I have taken into consideration the plumber’s written statement that: The leak is suspicious as the crox nut on the top outlet of the cylinder was extremely loose, with a lot of water coming out; as if someone had played with it. These nuts won’t come loose on their own.”
The plumber was not available during the hearing for me to ask questions of him. Accordingly I have given the plumber’s written statement less weight than if he had been available to give direct evidence and answer questions. I am left wondering whether the crox nut was tightened sufficiently by the plumber when he replaced the tempering valve in May 2025, and if it was not, whether it has loosened during that period. I find this is as much of a possibility as the tenant loosening the valve and therefore do not find the landlord has proven his claim.
Accordingly I find the tenant is entitled to compensation for loss of amenity. He was unable to live at the property from 2 to 4 July and was affected by the ongoing use of fans from 5 to 11 July.
The tenant has also claimed for his time to repeatedly contact the landlord for reimbursement. However landlords and tenants are required to take all reasonable steps to limit the mitigate or reduce their loss (see section 49, RTA). Therefore once the landlord had made it clear it was not going to compensate for this matter the tenant should have stopped texting and emailing and filed his claim for compensation. Accordingly I have not awarded any compensation for this reason.
I award $300.00 in compensation to the tenant for loss of amenity, which includes a rent rebate for 3 days at $50.00 a day. Is the tenant liable for costs incurred as a result of the fixed term tenancy ending early?
The landlord has claimed $162.97 for costs to let the premises for advertising and a credit check of the replacement tenant.
A landlord who agrees to an early termination of a fixed term tenancy is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenants any reasonable expenses incurred by the landlord in respect of the early termination. A landlord who seeks to recover such expenses from a tenant must first provide an itemised account of the expenses (see section 44A, RTA).
The landlord did not provide an itemised account of expenses to the tenant as required. This part of the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Other matters
Reimbursement of filing fees: The landlord was partly successful in its claim and I award the filing fee to be reimbursed by the tenant. As the tenant was successful in his claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression: The landlord did not apply for suppression. The tenant has applied for suppression of his name. As the tenant has been successful in his claim suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338100 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 6 Lynwood Terrace, Bishopdale, Nelson 7010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338100 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 6 Lynwood Terrace, Bishopdale, Nelson 7010

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent ?

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

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 ?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions