What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5121348?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Sophie Wratt at 2 Ataahua Place, Featherston, Featherston

How much money was awarded in case 5121348?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $546.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,177.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121348?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11556997-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5121348?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Sophie Wratt at 2 Ataahua Place, Featherston, Featherston

How much money was awarded in case 5121348?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $546.25 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,177.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121348?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11556997-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Ataahua Place, Featherston, Featherston 5710 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5121348 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5121348 — net $4,430.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 March 2025	$6,177.14	Rent arrears to 14 March 2025
Window repairs	$546.25	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,430.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,430.39

Order

The tenancy of Sophie Wratt at 2 Ataahua Place, Featherston, Featherston 5710 is terminated, and possession is granted to Devon Diggle and Siobhan Isles, at 11.59pm on Friday 14 March 2025.
The landlord’s claim for a work order for cleaning and rubbish removal during course of the tenancy is withdrawn.
The landlord may file another application with the Tribunal for claims in relation to damage to the oven separately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6405708-003) to Devon Diggle and Siobhan Isles immediately.
Sophie Wratt must pay Devon Diggle and Siobhan Isles $4,430.39 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been served with notice of the hearing and she was telephoned numerous times but did not answer the telephone when called. The hearing therefore went ahead in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. The landlord also applied for a work order in relation to the tenant’s cleanliness/rubbish.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Rent is at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. The tenancy is terminated.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Adjustments were made by the Tribunal following additional submissions and evidence from the landlord to take into account a spreadsheet error. The amount the tenant has actually paid for this tenancy in total is $47,100. The tenancy is presently 91 weeks and 3 days long (to the hearing date) and the weekly rent is $580. Arrears to today’s date are therefore $5,928.57.
The landlord has agreed to give the tenant several days from today to move out and to undertake her obligations upon vacating a property under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 such as rubbish removal and cleaning. I have therefore afforded the tenant until 14 March 2025 before the landlord may take possession. My order for arrears takes into account these additional days so the sum ordered in rent arrears is $6,177.14 which accounts for rent up to and including 14 March 2025.
I have applied the bond to this sum and ordered the Bond Centre to pay this to the landlord.
Because the tenancy is terminated the landlord does not require a work order in respect of cleaning/rubbish and in those circumstances it would not be appropriate to grant one in any event. Of course the tenant must still clean the property to the required standard (reasonably clean and tidy) upon vacating the property in any event. Therefore, this part of the application is withdrawn.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord says the tenant damaged a window. She told the landlord that someone had smashed it and arranged her own glazier. When the invoice was not paid the glazier contacted the landlord. The landlord provided written evidence of an agreement with the tenant that he would pay the glazier direct and the tenant would then reimburse him.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. 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) 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.
I am satisfied that a window was broken during the tenancy. I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I am satisfied that the landlord and tenant had an agreement that the landlord would pay the glazier and the tenant would reimburse them. The amounts ordered is proven.
The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In replacing this window, that the landlord says was almost brand new (this being a newly built property), I do not consider the replacement cost of a broken window requires depreciation. Additional claim
The landlord also wanted to add a claim for the replacement of an oven. This claim was only filed as a note on papers filed on 7 March and therefore there has been insufficient time for this additional claim to be notified to the tenant and for her to have adequate notice of this. The landlord may file another application for claims in relation to damage to the oven separately. Filing fee and suppression
Because Devon Diggle, Siobhan Isles has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
No application was made for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5121348 — net $4,430.39 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 14 March 2025	$6,177.14	Rent arrears to 14 March 2025
Window repairs	$546.25	Window repairs
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,430.39
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,430.39

Order

The tenancy of Sophie Wratt at 2 Ataahua Place, Featherston, Featherston 5710 is terminated, and possession is granted to Devon Diggle and Siobhan Isles, at 11.59pm on Friday 14 March 2025.
The landlord’s claim for a work order for cleaning and rubbish removal during course of the tenancy is withdrawn.
The landlord may file another application with the Tribunal for claims in relation to damage to the oven separately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (6405708-003) to Devon Diggle and Siobhan Isles immediately.
Sophie Wratt must pay Devon Diggle and Siobhan Isles $4,430.39 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. I am satisfied the tenant has been served with notice of the hearing and she was telephoned numerous times but did not answer the telephone when called. The hearing therefore went ahead in her absence.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond. The landlord also applied for a work order in relation to the tenant’s cleanliness/rubbish.
Where a landlord applies to terminate for breach, and rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the hearing date, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. See sections 55 and 56(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Rent is at least 21 days in arrears at the hearing date. The tenancy is terminated.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
Adjustments were made by the Tribunal following additional submissions and evidence from the landlord to take into account a spreadsheet error. The amount the tenant has actually paid for this tenancy in total is $47,100. The tenancy is presently 91 weeks and 3 days long (to the hearing date) and the weekly rent is $580. Arrears to today’s date are therefore $5,928.57.
The landlord has agreed to give the tenant several days from today to move out and to undertake her obligations upon vacating a property under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 such as rubbish removal and cleaning. I have therefore afforded the tenant until 14 March 2025 before the landlord may take possession. My order for arrears takes into account these additional days so the sum ordered in rent arrears is $6,177.14 which accounts for rent up to and including 14 March 2025.
I have applied the bond to this sum and ordered the Bond Centre to pay this to the landlord.
Because the tenancy is terminated the landlord does not require a work order in respect of cleaning/rubbish and in those circumstances it would not be appropriate to grant one in any event. Of course the tenant must still clean the property to the required standard (reasonably clean and tidy) upon vacating the property in any event. Therefore, this part of the application is withdrawn.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord says the tenant damaged a window. She told the landlord that someone had smashed it and arranged her own glazier. When the invoice was not paid the glazier contacted the landlord. The landlord provided written evidence of an agreement with the tenant that he would pay the glazier direct and the tenant would then reimburse him.
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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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. 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) 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.
I am satisfied that a window was broken during the tenancy. I am satisfied that the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I am satisfied that the landlord and tenant had an agreement that the landlord would pay the glazier and the tenant would reimburse them. The amounts ordered is proven.
The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In replacing this window, that the landlord says was almost brand new (this being a newly built property), I do not consider the replacement cost of a broken window requires depreciation. Additional claim
The landlord also wanted to add a claim for the replacement of an oven. This claim was only filed as a note on papers filed on 7 March and therefore there has been insufficient time for this additional claim to be notified to the tenant and for her to have adequate notice of this. The landlord may file another application for claims in relation to damage to the oven separately. Filing fee and suppression
Because Devon Diggle, Siobhan Isles has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
No application was made for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121348 — Rent arrears at 2 Ataahua Place, Featherston, Featherston 5710

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121348 — Rent arrears at 2 Ataahua Place, Featherston, Featherston 5710

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions