What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4826398?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4826398?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; To Replace The Shower Door: $494.00 awarded to landlord; To Replace Two Missing Doors At Each: $420.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826398?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826398?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10363403-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4826398?

The tribunal order states: The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4826398?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; To Replace The Shower Door: $494.00 awarded to landlord; To Replace Two Missing Doors At Each: $420.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826398?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826398?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10363403-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32 Cheshire Street, Cannons Creek, Porirua 5024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4826398 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4826398 — net $934.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
To replace two missing doors at each	$420.00	To replace two missing doors at each
To replace the shower door	$494.00	To replace the shower door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$934.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$934.44

The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Santana Austin must complete the repairs on two internal doors, repair the dents in the walls, and replace the towel rail that got damaged during the tenancy and replace the letter box and these repairs must be completed by Tuesday 18 June 2024.

Raewar Property Holding Limited As Trustee For Raewar Property Holding Trust will attend to maintenance and replace any missing doorstops and repair the oven.

The claim for the window repair is withdrawn.

Santana Austin must pay Raewar Property Holding Limited As Trustee For Raewar Property Holding Trust $934.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable – very unfair - to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

The tenant has breached her obligations by damaging the house and not completing repairs within a reasonable time. The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 28 January 2024 and the tenant did not remedy the breach within the required period. The landlord wants me to end the tenancy because he is concerned that there will be more damage, and possibly more serious damage.

In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229, the District Court considered s 56(1)(c) RTA and set out a range of factors relevant to whether it would be “inequitable to refuse” to terminate the tenancy: • The history of the tenancy. • Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. • Whether the history of breaches is such that it is unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. • Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. • The conduct of the landlord. • The gravity of the breach. • Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord must first prove the claim for damage, and then that the tenancy should end.

Tenants are responsible for damage to the premises which 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. See section 49B(3)(a) 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 landlord’s claim is large. The tenant agreed that the damage happened during her tenancy. She said she has four children and they are boisterous and damage sometimes happens. I have considered the photos and the evidence given by both parties at the hearing. It seems most likely to me that the tenant has allowed her children to continue to behave in a way that puts the house at risk of damage. This meets the definition of intentional damage. The resulting damage includes four doors, the shower door, the letterbox, and some small dents in the walls.

I have considered the factors set out in the Vincent Dean Huff case. This tenancy started two and a half years ago. In favour of termination, there has been a history of damage. The tenant did not comply with the 14 day notice given in January. Some of the earlier damage would have been inadvertent and careless but the later damage was intentional. It appears the landlord has acted reasonably. In favour of the tenancy continuing, the damage can all be repaired relatively easily, and the tenant said she is willing to repair what she can and seek assistance for the larger costs. I am not persuaded that ending the tenancy is a proportionate response to these breaches.

I find the tenant is responsible for replacing two internal doors and replacing the shower door. I find it is best the landlord arranges this work. The amount I have ordered is based on the landlord’s quote and is for parts and labour. I note the tenant said she already purchased locksets for the doors.

The tenant has started some repairs. I have allowed time for these to be completed.

Some of the damage is fair wear and tear. I have made an order that the landlord replace any missing doorstops and repair the oven handle, which was loose in one inspection and has now come off completely. It also seems likely to me that the deck rail came off because of fair wear and tear.

I note that the tenant is concerned about a leak and mould in one of the wardrobes, and the landlord must attend to this within a reasonable time frame, even if he is waiting for the tenant to pay for or complete repairs.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

If the tenant does not complete the repairs as ordered then the landlord can file another application.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4826398 — net $934.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
To replace two missing doors at each	$420.00	To replace two missing doors at each
To replace the shower door	$494.00	To replace the shower door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$934.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$934.44

The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.

Raewar Property Holding Limited As Trustee For Raewar Property Holding Trust will attend to maintenance and replace any missing doorstops and repair the oven.

The claim for the window repair is withdrawn.

Santana Austin must pay Raewar Property Holding Limited As Trustee For Raewar Property Holding Trust $934.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

This is the landlord’s claim to prove. The landlord must first prove the claim for damage, and then that the tenancy should end.

The tenant has started some repairs. I have allowed time for these to be completed.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

If the tenant does not complete the repairs as ordered then the landlord can file another application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826398 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Cheshire Street, Cannons Creek, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826398 — Tenancy dispute at 32 Cheshire Street, Cannons Creek, Porirua 5024

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions