What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5433708 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Glasshouse Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5433708?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Plumber'S Call Out Fee: $348.17 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5433708?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5433708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14058811-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5433708 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Glasshouse Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5433708?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Plumber'S Call Out Fee: $348.17 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5433708?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5433708?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14058811-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 46 May Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 5433708 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5433708 — net $1,556.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation - breach of neighbours quiet enjoyment	$2,500.00	Compensation - breach of neighbours quiet enjoyment
Rent arrears (to 19 June 2026	$800.00	Rent arrears (to 19 June 2026
Plumber's call out fee	$348.17	Plumber's call out fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,556.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,556.17

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Glasshouse Property Management Limited As Agents For John And Colette Torrance Family Trust $1,556.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 () to Glasshouse Property Management Limited As Agents For John And Colette Torrance Family Trust immediately.

Reasons

On 28 January 2026, the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations (breach of the body corporate rules related to keeping pets), rent arrears, conditional termination order and reimbursement of the filing fee.
A mediation conference was convened. At that conference the landlord amended their claim to include compensation for the plumbers call out fee and compensation for costs to repair a neighbour’s property. The claims for termination for rent arrears and the removal of pets was resolved.
The mediator referred the issue of compensation to the Tribunal for determination.
On 4 May 2026 the landlord appeared before the Tribunal. At that hearing the landlord amended their claim to again include termination of the tenancy and rent arrears. The matter was adjourned. Section 91(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”) and the principles of fairness and natural justice applied. The tenant had not been fully informed of the landlord’s intention to seek termination of the tenancy or rent arrears.
The matter proceeded on 21 July 2026. Mr Jason Boyles, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenants failed to appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenants were properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
The landlord withdrew their claim for termination of the tenancy advising they had recovered possession of the property.
The landlord then sought to amend their claim to include compensation for: a. Lock change - $193.02. b. Cleaning and rubbish removal - $600.00. c. Painting costs - $3,022.20 d. Methamphetamine testing costs - $2,070.00. e. Exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises – see section 40(2)(b) of the Act; and f. Disposal orders for a vehicle.
The Tribunal declines to amend the landlord’s claim. The District Court has confirmed that the Tribunal is restricted to hearing matters advanced in the applicants claim. 1 The landlord is not prevented from filing a fresh application for compensation and disposal orders. 1 He v Liu [2020] NZDC 24057 see paragraphs [4] and [5]

How much is owed in rent arrears?

The landlord provided up to date records that proved the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $800.00. The amount claimed is ordered.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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 landlord seeks compensation for: a. Plumbers call out fee to investigate a leak - $348.17 b. Compensation for damage caused to 1/46 May Street - $2,500.00

Is the tenant liable for the plumbers call out fee?

The landlord said the tenants failed to correctly install their washing machine waste water hose. Water drained out of the machine and seeped through the floor into the unit below damaging the bathroom ceiling. The Body Corporate arranged for a plumber to attend and investigate. An invoice for the plumbers callout was produced.
The plumbers invoice records: ”the upstairs tenants informed me that they had caused a bit of a flood with their washing machine hose, and had found and fixed it themselves over the weekend which makes sense with Monday being the last day downstairs saw water coming through ceiling.”
The tenancy agreement records at clause 13 that: “The tenant agrees to pay any reasonable callout charge if:...where no fault is found; the repairs are due to damage or negligence by the Tenant....”
Having heard from the landlord and considering the evidence I am satisfied the tenants are liable for the plumbers call out charge. The tenants were negligent in their installation of the washing machine waste water hose. This resulted water penetrating the ceiling of the lower unit, prompting the Body Corporate to arrange for the leak to be investigated by the plumber. No defects were detected with the properties plumbing and the tenants accepted responsibility for the leak.
The amount claimed is reasonable and that is what is ordered.

Are the tenant liable for the repairs costs at Unit 1/46 May Street?

The landlord produced an email from the Body Corporate confirming the insurance excess for the repairs to Unit 1/46 May Street (the flood damaged property) was $2,500.00. An invoice for the cost of the repairs totalling $2,741.60 was also supplied. The landlord seeks $2,500.00 being the lesser of the two amounts.
The landlord argued the tenants are liable to pay compensation because: a. It was their failure to correctly install the washing machine waste water pipe that caused a flood. b. The flood damaged the neighbours bathroom ceiling; and c. The damage required the bathroom ceiling to be replaced.
Section 40(2)(a) states that the tenant shall not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit damage to the premises.
Section 2 of the Act defines premises to include: a. Any part of any premises; and b. Any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and c. Any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter place or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.
In Phillips v Taylor DC Whanganui 424/94 25 January 2002, Judge Becroft found that: “The definition of premises must mean the premises the subject of the residential tenancy agreement or any part of those premises. But further than that the definition does not and cannot be stretched to go. It simply does not mean any part of any premises anywhere in the country. Whether those premises are adjoining each other or elsewhere seems to me to be irrelevant.”
In Bribanc Property Management Ltd v Hayman TT07/3984/AK, 9 January 2008 the Tribunal stated: ”[22] The Act gives the Tribunal jurisdiction in relation to disputes between landlord and tenants of residential premises. Section 40 sets out a tenant’s responsibilities in respect of “the premises’. The Act does not provide for a situation where a tenant causes damage to other property.”
In this case the landlord seeks compensation totalling $2,500.00 for repair costs paid by them in respect of damage caused to the ceiling of an adjoining property. The Tribunal has already determined the tenants are responsible for this damage. No damage was identified or compensation sought for repairs premises subject to the tenancy agreement.
The Tribunal has been guided by the decisions of Phillips v Taylor and Bribanc Property Management Ltd v Hayman and finds that it does not jurisdiction to order compensation under section 40(2)(a) of the Act for damage caused to an adjoining property that is not subject to the tenancy agreement.
However, section 40(2)(c) of the Act states that a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant’s actions in failing to properly secure the washing machine’s waste water pipe causing a flood breached the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of their neighbour. The tenants are liable to pay compensation and the amount claimed is ordered. Other matters
Because Glasshouse Property Management Limited As Agents For John And Colette Torrance Family Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord seeks name suppression. Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal may order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression is allowed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5433708 — net $1,556.17 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Compensation - breach of neighbours quiet enjoyment	$2,500.00	Compensation - breach of neighbours quiet enjoyment
Rent arrears (to 19 June 2026	$800.00	Rent arrears (to 19 June 2026
Plumber's call out fee	$348.17	Plumber's call out fee
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,556.17
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,556.17

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Glasshouse Property Management Limited As Agents For John And Colette Torrance Family Trust $1,556.17 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,120.00 () to Glasshouse Property Management Limited As Agents For John And Colette Torrance Family Trust immediately.

Reasons

On 28 January 2026, the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations (breach of the body corporate rules related to keeping pets), rent arrears, conditional termination order and reimbursement of the filing fee.
A mediation conference was convened. At that conference the landlord amended their claim to include compensation for the plumbers call out fee and compensation for costs to repair a neighbour’s property. The claims for termination for rent arrears and the removal of pets was resolved.
The mediator referred the issue of compensation to the Tribunal for determination.
On 4 May 2026 the landlord appeared before the Tribunal. At that hearing the landlord amended their claim to again include termination of the tenancy and rent arrears. The matter was adjourned. Section 91(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”) and the principles of fairness and natural justice applied. The tenant had not been fully informed of the landlord’s intention to seek termination of the tenancy or rent arrears.
The matter proceeded on 21 July 2026. Mr Jason Boyles, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenants failed to appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenants were properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
The landlord withdrew their claim for termination of the tenancy advising they had recovered possession of the property.
The landlord then sought to amend their claim to include compensation for: a. Lock change - $193.02. b. Cleaning and rubbish removal - $600.00. c. Painting costs - $3,022.20 d. Methamphetamine testing costs - $2,070.00. e. Exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises – see section 40(2)(b) of the Act; and f. Disposal orders for a vehicle.
The Tribunal declines to amend the landlord’s claim. The District Court has confirmed that the Tribunal is restricted to hearing matters advanced in the applicants claim. 1 The landlord is not prevented from filing a fresh application for compensation and disposal orders. 1 He v Liu [2020] NZDC 24057 see paragraphs [4] and [5]

How much is owed in rent arrears?

The landlord provided up to date records that proved the amount owing at the end of the tenancy totalled $800.00. The amount claimed is ordered.

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 of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
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) of the Act.
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 landlord seeks compensation for: a. Plumbers call out fee to investigate a leak - $348.17 b. Compensation for damage caused to 1/46 May Street - $2,500.00

Is the tenant liable for the plumbers call out fee?

The landlord said the tenants failed to correctly install their washing machine waste water hose. Water drained out of the machine and seeped through the floor into the unit below damaging the bathroom ceiling. The Body Corporate arranged for a plumber to attend and investigate. An invoice for the plumbers callout was produced.
The plumbers invoice records: ”the upstairs tenants informed me that they had caused a bit of a flood with their washing machine hose, and had found and fixed it themselves over the weekend which makes sense with Monday being the last day downstairs saw water coming through ceiling.”
The tenancy agreement records at clause 13 that: “The tenant agrees to pay any reasonable callout charge if:...where no fault is found; the repairs are due to damage or negligence by the Tenant....”
Having heard from the landlord and considering the evidence I am satisfied the tenants are liable for the plumbers call out charge. The tenants were negligent in their installation of the washing machine waste water hose. This resulted water penetrating the ceiling of the lower unit, prompting the Body Corporate to arrange for the leak to be investigated by the plumber. No defects were detected with the properties plumbing and the tenants accepted responsibility for the leak.
The amount claimed is reasonable and that is what is ordered.

Are the tenant liable for the repairs costs at Unit 1/46 May Street?

The landlord produced an email from the Body Corporate confirming the insurance excess for the repairs to Unit 1/46 May Street (the flood damaged property) was $2,500.00. An invoice for the cost of the repairs totalling $2,741.60 was also supplied. The landlord seeks $2,500.00 being the lesser of the two amounts.
The landlord argued the tenants are liable to pay compensation because: a. It was their failure to correctly install the washing machine waste water pipe that caused a flood. b. The flood damaged the neighbours bathroom ceiling; and c. The damage required the bathroom ceiling to be replaced.
Section 40(2)(a) states that the tenant shall not intentionally or carelessly damage, or permit damage to the premises.
Section 2 of the Act defines premises to include: a. Any part of any premises; and b. Any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and c. Any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter place or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.
In Phillips v Taylor DC Whanganui 424/94 25 January 2002, Judge Becroft found that: “The definition of premises must mean the premises the subject of the residential tenancy agreement or any part of those premises. But further than that the definition does not and cannot be stretched to go. It simply does not mean any part of any premises anywhere in the country. Whether those premises are adjoining each other or elsewhere seems to me to be irrelevant.”
In Bribanc Property Management Ltd v Hayman TT07/3984/AK, 9 January 2008 the Tribunal stated: ”[22] The Act gives the Tribunal jurisdiction in relation to disputes between landlord and tenants of residential premises. Section 40 sets out a tenant’s responsibilities in respect of “the premises’. The Act does not provide for a situation where a tenant causes damage to other property.”
In this case the landlord seeks compensation totalling $2,500.00 for repair costs paid by them in respect of damage caused to the ceiling of an adjoining property. The Tribunal has already determined the tenants are responsible for this damage. No damage was identified or compensation sought for repairs premises subject to the tenancy agreement.
The Tribunal has been guided by the decisions of Phillips v Taylor and Bribanc Property Management Ltd v Hayman and finds that it does not jurisdiction to order compensation under section 40(2)(a) of the Act for damage caused to an adjoining property that is not subject to the tenancy agreement.
However, section 40(2)(c) of the Act states that a tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant’s actions in failing to properly secure the washing machine’s waste water pipe causing a flood breached the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of their neighbour. The tenants are liable to pay compensation and the amount claimed is ordered. Other matters
Because Glasshouse Property Management Limited As Agents For John And Colette Torrance Family Trust has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The landlord seeks name suppression. Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal may order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings. The landlord has been wholly successful and suppression is allowed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5433708 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 46 May Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5433708 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 46 May Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed in rent arrears?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for the plumbers call out fee?

Are the tenant liable for the repairs costs at Unit 1/46 May Street?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed in rent arrears?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Is the tenant liable for the plumbers call out fee?

Are the tenant liable for the repairs costs at Unit 1/46 May Street?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.