What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400111 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 5400111?

Cleaning: $3,515.39 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400111?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400111?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13715391-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5400111 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 5400111?

Cleaning: $3,515.39 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400111?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400111?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13715391-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1116, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5400111 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5400111 — net $2,583.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to lift and cleaning	$3,515.39	Repairs to lift and cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,583.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,583.39

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for compensation for damage that occurred during the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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.

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: on two separate occasions the tenant’s ex-partner entered the premises and caused damage to the common areas in the building where the tenancy premises are located; specifically, the lift and a lift camera mess that was damaged on 6. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Her partner entered the building using a key fob/swab she had provided him with. She had not taken steps to exclude him from the building at that time so she is liable for the repair costs (noting that for the purposes of tenant liability damage to facilities is included if the damage is caused by a person the tenant has permitted to be at the premises.

The tenant is not however responsible for the damage/repair cost associated with the second incident, on14 November, when her ex partner again entered the building. This time he did not use the security swab she had provided him with as she had made him return it. He entered by “tailing” someone else into the building. The tenant said she had also obtained a trespass order against him after the first incident, and while that was not provided, her evidence that she had precluded his entry by disabling/retrieving the security key she had given him is accepted. It is also sufficient to rebut the presumption that she “permitted” his entry on the second occasion. She had taken reasonable steps to exclude him from the building. The landlord’s cause of action is then potentially against either the tenant’s ex-partner directly or the Body Corp (it is not against the tenant and so the claim for compensation for the second invoice of $488 is dismissed).

The landlord’s evidence that the Body Corp’s insurance excess is higher than the repair cost is accepted so issues regarding limitation of liability do not apply.

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approved her request for name suppression.

The amounts ordered are proved by the evidence provided.

The tenants request for name suppression was supported by the landlord and as she did not cause the damage and took prompt steps to exclude her ex- partner, I have approved the request on the grounds there is little public interest in publishing her name.

It is also noted that she agreed at the hearing to repay the debt and will make arrangements with the landlord to do that as quickly as she can.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5400111 — net $2,583.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs to lift and cleaning	$3,515.39	Repairs to lift and cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,583.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,583.39

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both party’s names and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,583.39 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for compensation for damage that occurred during the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.

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.
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: on two separate occasions the tenant’s ex-partner entered the premises and caused damage to the common areas in the building where the tenancy premises are located; specifically, the lift and a lift camera mess that was damaged on 6. The damage is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Her partner entered the building using a key fob/swab she had provided him with. She had not taken steps to exclude him from the building at that time so she is liable for the repair costs (noting that for the purposes of tenant liability damage to facilities is included if the damage is caused by a person the tenant has permitted to be at the premises.
The tenant is not however responsible for the damage/repair cost associated with the second incident, on14 November, when her ex partner again entered the building. This time he did not use the security swab she had provided him with as she had made him return it. He entered by “tailing” someone else into the building. The tenant said she had also obtained a trespass order against him after the first incident, and while that was not provided, her evidence that she had precluded his entry by disabling/retrieving the security key she had given him is accepted. It is also sufficient to rebut the presumption that she “permitted” his entry on the second occasion. She had taken reasonable steps to exclude him from the building. The landlord’s cause of action is then potentially against either the tenant’s ex-partner directly or the Body Corp (it is not against the tenant and so the claim for compensation for the second invoice of $488 is dismissed).
The landlord’s evidence that the Body Corp’s insurance excess is higher than the repair cost is accepted so issues regarding limitation of liability do not apply.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approved her request for name suppression.
The amounts ordered are proved by the evidence provided.
The tenants request for name suppression was supported by the landlord and as she did not cause the damage and took prompt steps to exclude her ex- partner, I have approved the request on the grounds there is little public interest in publishing her name.
It is also noted that she agreed at the hearing to repay the debt and will make arrangements with the landlord to do that as quickly as she can.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400111 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1116, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400111 — Cleanliness at Unit/Flat 1116, 72 Nelson Street, Auckland Central,

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