What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5196511?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 (5629065-005) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5196511?

Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5196511?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5196511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12173693-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5196511?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 (5629065-005) immediately

How much money was awarded in case 5196511?

Property Damage: $450.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5196511?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5196511?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12173693-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 5B, 8 White Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5196511 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5196511. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$450.00		Repairs

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5196511. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Repairs	$450.00		Repairs

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 (5629065-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Nsj Holdings Limited: $450.00 Yuxin Qiu and Minji Kim: $1,990.00

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The Tenants want to recover the bond. They also seek: a. Compensation for $2,480 rent they paid while they were not living at the premises on the grounds that the Landlord denied early termination of the tenancy without reasonable justification; and b. Exemplary damages, alleging that the Landlord: i. Unlawfully required the Tenants to pay electricity reconnection fees and to maintain the electricity connection. ii. Unlawfully entered the premises without permission or required notice. iii. Threatened and coerced the Tenants in an attempt to resolve this dispute.
The Landlord has filed a cross claim. It seeks: a. Compensation for: i. Damage to floor tiles, a computer desk and a curtain bead protector. ii. A missing porcelain mug and bowl. iii. Cleaning costs. b. Exemplary damages, alleging that the Tenants: i. Tampered with a smoke alarm by covering the alarm with tape. ii. Opening and withholding a power bill that was not addressed to the Tenants. The Tenants’ claim Denial of early termination
The tenancy was initially for a fixed term of 12 months. On 10 December 2023, the parties entered into a further fixed term tenancy, ending on 17 February 2025.
On 3 October 2024, the Tenants asked to end the tenancy early. The Tenants sent a WhatsApp message to the Landlord asking to end the tenancy in November 2023. The Tenants also say they also offered to pay an early termination fee.
Although the Landlord declined to allow the Tenants to end the tenancy early and advised them that they were required to pay the rent until the end of the term, the Landlord did agree to consider allowing one of the Tenants to sublet their tenancy to a third party. The Landlord insisted that the Tenants would nonetheless remain liable under the agreement for the remainder of the fixed term.
It seems that the Tenants did not then provide the details of the proposed subtenant and agreed to continue the tenancy until the end of the fixed term. The Tenants then continued to pay rent and outgoings until the end of the tenancy. The Tenants now seek $2,480 compensation on the grounds that the Landlord declined to end the tenancy early without reasonable justification.
There is a presumption in law that the parties to a fixed term contract will be held to that term. A tenant will therefore be bound to pay the rent until the end of the fixed term tenancy unless the Landlord agrees to end the tenancy (which it does not have to do) or one of the exceptions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) allows the tenant to end the tenancy early.
None of the exceptions apply in this case. There was no unforeseen change in the Tenants’ circumstances that would cause severe hardship 1 and the exception relating to family violence does not apply here. 2 Instead, relevant to the facts of this case, the one way the Tenants could have ended this tenancy early was to assign the tenancy to another tenant with the Landlord’s consent. The rules of assignment are contained in section 43B of the RTA.
To assign the tenancy, the Tenants were required to make a written request for the Landlord’s consent. That request were required to identify and include the contact details for the proposed assignee. 3 If the Tenants had made such a written required, the Landlord could not withhold consent unreasonably. 4
The Tenants did not follow the requirements in section 43B. Although they sent a WhatsApp message seeking assignment to a third person, they did not name the assignee or provide contact details. The Landlord’s refusal to assign the tenancy is therefore not a breach of the RTA and the Tenants’ claim for compensation is dismissed. Electricity reconnection fees and maintain electricity connection
The Tenants advised Contact - their electricity supplier - that they were leaving the premises. On 8 February 2025, Contact sent a letter to the Tenants advising that the electricity would be disconnected on or after seven days of the date of the letter. The Tenants alleged that the Landlord then unlawfully attempted to require them to pay a fee for reconnecting electricity to the premises.
I am not satisfied that the Tenants have proven this claim. The electricity was not disconnected, and the Landlord does not seek to recover the cost of reconnecting the electricity, because it incurred no such cost. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 66(1) 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 56B 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 43B(4) 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 43B(6)
The Tenants also claimed that the Landlord acted unlawfully by telling them not to disconnect the electricity from the premises. That was not the Landlord’s decision to make. The electricity account was in the name of the Tenants, and it was for them to decide how and when the contract with the electricity supplier should come to an end.
Nonetheless, the Landlord’s conduct was not unlawful. It was not a breach of any of the terms of the tenancy agreement between the parties, or the Landlord’s obligations in section 45 of the RTA, or any other provision of that Act. This part of the Tenants’ claim is also dismissed. Entry without permission or notice
The Tenants sent the letter from Contact to the Landlord on 15 February 2025. By that time the Tenants had moved out of the premises, although they continued to pay rent until 17 February.
Upon receiving the letter, the Landlord became worried that the electricity was about to be disconnected to the premises, affecting the electrical appliances and fire safety systems in the premises. The premises were fully furnished at the start of the tenancy, including electrical appliances.
The Landlord says that it tried to contact Contact, but because it was a weekend no one responded. Still worried, the Landlord then went to the premises on 15 February 2025 to check that the electrical appliances had all been turned off and that the fire safety system was set to function if the power was disconnected. The Landlord did not notify the Tenants that it was entering the premises. The Landlord’s representative says that he did knock on the door before entering, and only entered after no one replied.
The Tenants allege that the Landlord’s entry of the premises on 15 February 2025 without permission or providing the required notice was unlawful. The Landlord says that its entry was lawful due to an emergency, and therefore permitted by section 48(2)(a) of the RTA.
I do not consider that the circumstances amounted to an emergency such that the Landlord needed to enter the premises without first contacting the Tenants. I agree that there was some urgency, but I am not satisfied that the Landlord needed to act without first seeking the Tenants’ consent to enter or other give the required notice.
However, in the circumstances I am not satisfied that an order of exemplary damages is required to do justice between the parties. The premises were effectively vacant - the Tenants had already moved out and had advised the Landlord of that fact - so any potential invasion of privacy or quiet enjoyment caused by the Landlord entering to check on the electrical appliances and fire safety systems was, at most, minimal. Likewise, the Landlord was genuinely concerned that its electrical appliances and fire safety systems might be compromised in the event that the electricity was disconnected and unexpectedly reconnected and I am satisfied that its actions were motivated solely by trying to protect those assets, rather than to interfere with the Tenants’ privacy or quiet enjoyment.
Therefore, although its conduct breached section 48(1) of the RTA, I am not satisfied that the Landlord’s actions were sufficiently egregious to warrant an award of exemplary damages.
The Tenants also suggested that the Landlord may have breached section 48(1) of the RTA by entering the premises on 16 February 2025. They say that they agreed to meet the Landlord at 4pm at the premises. The Landlord arrived at about 3.30 pm and let itself it.
This allegation did not form part of the Tenants’ claim, so I cannot make any orders regarding this conduct. However, I do note that any harm caused to the Tenants by this early entry was, at most, negligible and had I been asked to consider this part of the claim I would likely have made no order for exemplary damages. Threats and coercion
The Tenants say that the Landlord initially advised them that it wanted to recover $486.50 in compensation for repairs required at the end of the tenancy. The Tenants disputed this amount, so the Landlord offered to settle the dispute for $300, and then $250. As part of that discussion, the Landlord advised that it would seek further amounts, including amounts for cleaning and missing items if it had to bring the dispute to the Tribunal. The Tenants say that the Landlord’s conduct was coercive and intended to discourage them from exercising their legal rights.
The Landlord and Tenants were in dispute at the end of the tenancy about the amounts the Tenants should contribute for cleaning and to remedy damage. Although the Tenants may disagree with the amounts sought by the Landlord and its efforts to resolve this dispute, the evidence shows that the Landlord simply engaged in the common settlement strategy of offering to accept less to settle the matter than would otherwise be claimed if the matter was subject to Tribunal proceedings.
That is not coercion or intimidation, and the Tenants are not entitled to exemplary damages due to this conduct. The Landlord’s claim Damage to the floor tiles, desk and curtain bead protector
Under section 49A of the RTA, there is a general principle that a tenant has no liability or obligation to meet the cost of any damage to the premises. However, under section 49B of the RTA, a tenant can be liable where: a. the Landlord proves that the damage was caused during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear; and b. the Tenant does not prove that the damage was not caused by any careless or intentional act or omission.
The Landlord has provided photographs that show paint splattered on outdoor tiles, a blob of superglue on a computer desk and a damaged curtain opener (described by the Landlord as a curtain bead protector).
The Tenants deny damaging the curtain bead protector. They say that part was already broken when they moved in. The Landlord provided no evidence as to the condition of the bead protector at the start of the tenancy. I therefore find that the Landlord has not proven that this damage occurred during the tenancy, so this part of the Landlord’s claim is dismissed.
The Tenants agree that they spilled acrylic paint on the exterior tiles and super glue on a computer desk. They also accept that they did not clean the paint or super glue from the affected areas.
That damage was careless and more than fair wear and tear. Fair wear and tear is deterioration due to both reasonable use and ordinary operation of natural forces, reasonable conduct on the part of the tenant being assumed. 5 The paint and glue stains were caused by the Tenants spilling substances onto the tiles and desk. To compound matters, the Tenants then appear to have made no effort to then remove the paint and glue. I am satisfied that their conduct, both in spilling the paint and glue and then failing to clean, was careless.
The Landlord has obtained three estimates to remove the paint and super glue stains. The lowest is an estimate of $450. That is a reasonable amount given the work required, and I award that amount to the Landlord. The missing porcelain mug and plate
The Landlord says that a plate and porcelain mug are now missing. The Tenants deny this allegation and say that they have not broken or disposed of the mug or plate.
The Landlord has not proved that the mug or plate were present at the start of the tenancy and that those items are now missing. For example, the Tenant did not provide a chattels list from before and after the tenancy, or any post tenancy photographs. Further, even if the items were broken during the tenancy, I consider that to be fair wear and tear. This tenancy lasted for two years. A landlord can reasonably expect a small number of high use items like a plate and a mug to become damaged in that time through ordinary use.
This part of the Landlord’s claim is therefore dismissed. 5 Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd v McKeefry [2019] NZTT 4114629, 4169403 The cleaning
The Landlord seeks compensation for the time he spent cleaning the toilet, shower and balcony. I decline to grant compensation for cleaning costs. The Landlord provided no photographs that showed the condition of those areas at the start of the tenancy, so I cannot reasonably conclude that the Tenants failed to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.
For all I know, the premises were in the same, or similar condition at the start. In that regard, I note that the only photographs that were provided from the start of the tenancy were provided by the Tenants. Those photographs show that, generally, the premises were as clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy as they were at the start. Smoke alarm tampering
The Landlord alleges that the Tenants tampered with the smoke alarm by putting transparent tape across part of the smoke alarm. The Tenants deny doing so.
Regardless of whether the Tenants were responsible for putting tape on the alarm the Landlord’s claim for exemplary damages for this conduct must fail because it has not presented any evidence to demonstrate that the tape would have adversely affected the performance of the smoke alarm. The Landlord bears the onus of proving that the tape would have affected the smoke alarm. I cannot simply assume that to be so. In the absence of this evidence, the Landlord’s exemplary damages claim is therefore dismissed. The Contact letter
The Landlord also sought exemplary damages because it says the Tenants opened and then withheld the 8 February 2025 letter from Contact relating to the disconnection of the power supply. The Landlord says the letter was addressed to it.
The letter from Contact was not addressed to the Landlord. It was addressed to “The Current Occupier”, which as at the date of the letter was the Tenants. The Tenants were therefore entitled to open the letter and were not required to immediately pass that letter to the Landlord. This claim for exemplary damages is also dismissed. Filing fee and name suppression
I decline to order that either party compensate the other for the filing fee. Both parties have had some success in defending the others’ claim but have been largely unsuccessful in their own claims. Most of the claims filed, including all five claims for exemplary damages and three of the four compensation claims, have been dismissed.
I also decline to grant name suppression. Again, neither party has been wholly or substantially successful, and I see no public interest grounds for suppressing the parties’ names. The Bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,440.00 (5629065-005) immediately apportioned as follows: Nsj Holdings Limited: $450.00 Yuxin Qiu and Minji Kim: $1,990.00

Tenancy Tribunal case 5196511 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 5B, 8 White Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5196511 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 5B, 8 White Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions