What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344702 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim for one week’s rent and reimbursement of advertising costs is

How much money was awarded in case 5344702?

Property Damage: $14.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344702?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344702?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13004403-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344702 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim for one week’s rent and reimbursement of advertising costs is

How much money was awarded in case 5344702?

Property Damage: $14.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344702?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344702?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13004403-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

187 Cames Road, Mangawhai, RD 5, Mangawhai 0975 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5344702 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344702 — net $14.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to paver	$14.60	Repairs to paver
Net award	$14.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14.60

Order

The claim for one week’s rent and reimbursement of advertising costs is dismissed.
Frank Feilding and Sarika Meszaros must pay James Gregory Stimpson And Deborah Leigh Everett As Trustees Of The Aries Trust And The Pisces Trust $14.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Repairs to paver$14.60 Total award$14.60 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$14.60

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference. Ms Everett attended for the landlords and Ms Meszaros attended for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for one week’s rent ($580), advertising ($199), compensation ($14.60) and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disputes the claims.
The parties advised that prior to these proceedings the bond was refunded to the landlord at the end of the tenancy with the consent of both parties to cover three weeks rent arrears. Standard of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated:“...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 or 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.” Does the tenant owe one week’s rent and the cost of advertising the premises? The Claim
The tenancy ended on 7 August 2025.
The landlord claimed that the tenant broke a two-year fixed term contract and seeks one week’s rent to the date the new tenant moved in and reimbursement of the cost of advertising the premises.
The tenant disputed being in a two-year fixed term tenancy and claimed that the tenancy was periodic. The Evidence
In support of the claim the landlord gave the following evidence: (a)The landlord stated that the tenant verbally agreed to a two-year fixed term tenancy when the premises were viewed, and that the landlord noted this in her notes at the time. (b)The landlord provided a copy of an email to the tenant dated 10 March 2025 which stated “As Greg didn’t have our book in front of us when you rang there are a couple of things -what date after 4 April were you looking to move in? -Fixed term contract of two years, and after that periodic tenancy unless you wanted to extend the fixed term -2 weeks rent for deposit - $1160.00 -Bank account .... We will come up to Mangawhai in the next couple of weeks (time to suit all of us) and sign up the tenancy agreement Please confirm the above is agreeable ...” (c)The tenants did not reply to this email. (d)The parties signed the tenancy agreement on 23 March 2025 for a tenancy to commence on 11 April 2025. (e)The tenancy agreement provided that was signed by the parties does not have either fixed term or periodic crossed out and does not contain a date for the end of the tenancy. The landlord stated that this was an oversight. (f)The landlord stated that she was not necessarily looking for a two-year fixed term and would have been happy with one year. (g)The landlord claimed that by paying the bond the tenants agreed to the two- year fixed term. (h)The tenants gave notice to end the tenancy and moved out on 7 August 2025. (i)The landlord advertised, and new tenants were found who moved in one week after the tenants moved out. The landlord seeks the cost of one week’s rent and the advertising costs and evidence of this was provided.
The tenant disputed the landlord’s evidence and stated that at the time of viewing the premises there was a conversation regarding how long they wished to stay in the property, and they advised that they were looking to stay in the area for 2 years. The tenant stated that there was no agreement to a fixed term tenancy.
The tenant stated that they wished to take the premises and paid the bond but that the tenancy agreement provided did not specify a fixed term.
The tenants’ circumstances changed, and they took advice as to whether they were in a fixed term or periodic tenancy and were advised that as the agreement did not specify a fixed term they were in a periodic tenancy, therefore they gave notice to end the tenancy.
The landlord stated that the fact the tenants obtained legal advice was evidence they knew they were in a fixed term tenancy. The tenant responded that the reason they took legal advice was because they read the tenancy agreement and wanted to clarify if it was fixed term or periodic. The Law
The landlord is responsible for ensuring that the tenancy agreement is in writing. See section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 13A sets out the requirements for the contents of every tenancy agreement. The relevant subsection in this case is subsection (1)(p) which states that if the tenancy is a fixed term the date on which the term will expire must be included.
A landlord who fails to include the listed information in subsection (1) commits an unlawful act. See section 13A (1AAA) RTA. The Decision
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: (a)The tenancy agreement is not clear as to whether this is a fixed term or periodic tenancy and does not specify a fixed term tenancy end date. (b)There is a conflict of evidence as the landlord claims that the tenants verbally agreed to a fixed term but the tenant stated they only expressed their intention to remain in the area but did not formally agree to a two year fixed term. There is no written evidence that the tenants agreed to a fixed term tenancy. (c)I am not satisfied the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant agreed to a fixed term tenancy. (d)It is the responsibility of the landlord to ensure the tenancy agreement is compliant. An ambiguity in terms will be interpreted in favour of the party who did not draft the agreement, in this case the tenant. Therefore, the tenancy will be treated as a periodic tenancy. (e)Therefore the claim for recovery of costs for breaking a fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a paver that had been laid for a walking path was broken. The landlord provided a photograph of the damage taken at the end of the tenancy and a copy of the invoice confirming when the pavers were installed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.
Because James Gregory Stimpson and Deborah Leigh Everett As Trustees Of The Aries Trust And The Pisces Trust has not substantially succeeded with the claim I have not reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344702 — net $14.60 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to paver	$14.60	Repairs to paver
Net award	$14.60
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$14.60

Order

The claim for one week’s rent and reimbursement of advertising costs is dismissed.
Frank Feilding and Sarika Meszaros must pay James Gregory Stimpson And Deborah Leigh Everett As Trustees Of The Aries Trust And The Pisces Trust $14.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Repairs to paver$14.60 Total award$14.60 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$14.60

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference. Ms Everett attended for the landlords and Ms Meszaros attended for the tenants.
The landlord has applied for one week’s rent ($580), advertising ($199), compensation ($14.60) and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant disputes the claims.
The parties advised that prior to these proceedings the bond was refunded to the landlord at the end of the tenancy with the consent of both parties to cover three weeks rent arrears. Standard of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach. Corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated:“...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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 or 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.” Does the tenant owe one week’s rent and the cost of advertising the premises? The Claim
The tenancy ended on 7 August 2025.
The landlord claimed that the tenant broke a two-year fixed term contract and seeks one week’s rent to the date the new tenant moved in and reimbursement of the cost of advertising the premises.
The tenant disputed being in a two-year fixed term tenancy and claimed that the tenancy was periodic. The Evidence
In support of the claim the landlord gave the following evidence: (a)The landlord stated that the tenant verbally agreed to a two-year fixed term tenancy when the premises were viewed, and that the landlord noted this in her notes at the time. (b)The landlord provided a copy of an email to the tenant dated 10 March 2025 which stated “As Greg didn’t have our book in front of us when you rang there are a couple of things -what date after 4 April were you looking to move in? -Fixed term contract of two years, and after that periodic tenancy unless you wanted to extend the fixed term -2 weeks rent for deposit - $1160.00 -Bank account .... We will come up to Mangawhai in the next couple of weeks (time to suit all of us) and sign up the tenancy agreement Please confirm the above is agreeable ...” (c)The tenants did not reply to this email. (d)The parties signed the tenancy agreement on 23 March 2025 for a tenancy to commence on 11 April 2025. (e)The tenancy agreement provided that was signed by the parties does not have either fixed term or periodic crossed out and does not contain a date for the end of the tenancy. The landlord stated that this was an oversight. (f)The landlord stated that she was not necessarily looking for a two-year fixed term and would have been happy with one year. (g)The landlord claimed that by paying the bond the tenants agreed to the two- year fixed term. (h)The tenants gave notice to end the tenancy and moved out on 7 August 2025. (i)The landlord advertised, and new tenants were found who moved in one week after the tenants moved out. The landlord seeks the cost of one week’s rent and the advertising costs and evidence of this was provided.
The tenant disputed the landlord’s evidence and stated that at the time of viewing the premises there was a conversation regarding how long they wished to stay in the property, and they advised that they were looking to stay in the area for 2 years. The tenant stated that there was no agreement to a fixed term tenancy.
The tenant stated that they wished to take the premises and paid the bond but that the tenancy agreement provided did not specify a fixed term.
The tenants’ circumstances changed, and they took advice as to whether they were in a fixed term or periodic tenancy and were advised that as the agreement did not specify a fixed term they were in a periodic tenancy, therefore they gave notice to end the tenancy.
The landlord stated that the fact the tenants obtained legal advice was evidence they knew they were in a fixed term tenancy. The tenant responded that the reason they took legal advice was because they read the tenancy agreement and wanted to clarify if it was fixed term or periodic. The Law
The landlord is responsible for ensuring that the tenancy agreement is in writing. See section 13 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Section 13A sets out the requirements for the contents of every tenancy agreement. The relevant subsection in this case is subsection (1)(p) which states that if the tenancy is a fixed term the date on which the term will expire must be included.
A landlord who fails to include the listed information in subsection (1) commits an unlawful act. See section 13A (1AAA) RTA. The Decision
Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities for the following reasons: (a)The tenancy agreement is not clear as to whether this is a fixed term or periodic tenancy and does not specify a fixed term tenancy end date. (b)There is a conflict of evidence as the landlord claims that the tenants verbally agreed to a fixed term but the tenant stated they only expressed their intention to remain in the area but did not formally agree to a two year fixed term. There is no written evidence that the tenants agreed to a fixed term tenancy. (c)I am not satisfied the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant agreed to a fixed term tenancy. (d)It is the responsibility of the landlord to ensure the tenancy agreement is compliant. An ambiguity in terms will be interpreted in favour of the party who did not draft the agreement, in this case the tenant. Therefore, the tenancy will be treated as a periodic tenancy. (e)Therefore the claim for recovery of costs for breaking a fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a paver that had been laid for a walking path was broken. The landlord provided a photograph of the damage taken at the end of the tenancy and a copy of the invoice confirming when the pavers were installed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amount ordered is proved.
Because James Gregory Stimpson and Deborah Leigh Everett As Trustees Of The Aries Trust And The Pisces Trust has not substantially succeeded with the claim I have not reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344702 — Property damage at 187 Cames Road, Mangawhai, RD 5, Mangawhai 0975

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344702 — Property damage at 187 Cames Road, Mangawhai, RD 5, Mangawhai 0975

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions