What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4606059 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 4606059?

Cleaning: $851.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,440.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,380.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $24.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4606059?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4606059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9221186-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4606059 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 4606059?

Cleaning: $851.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $480.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $230.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $6,440.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,380.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $24.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4606059?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages, Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4606059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9221186-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4606059 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4606059 — Rent arrears | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4606059 — net $13,346.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,380.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$24.71	Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$480.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$851.00	Cleaning
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$230.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Repairs	$6,440.00	Repairs
Exemplary damages - abandonment	$600.00	Exemplary damages - abandonment
Exemplary damages - unlawful use	$600.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,346.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,346.15

Claims and awards for application 4606059 — net $13,346.15 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $7,380.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $24.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $480.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $851.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Electrical fittings replacement/repair

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Electrical fittings replacement/repair

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Julie D'avignon and Allan Xiao Chen Shao at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Julie D'avignon and Allan Xiao Chen Shao must pay [The landlord/s] $13,346.15 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing today. There was no appearance from the tenants.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for abandonment, rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate the tenancy where the premises have been abandoned and rent is in arrear at the hearing date (section 61 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.
The landlord became aware that the tenants had abandoned the premises on 14 June 2023, when the landlord conducted an inspection. The tenants had changed the locks without permission, taken all their personal belongings and left a few items of furniture. The property was found to be extensively damaged with varying degrees of damage to the walls and ceilings. In particular, several large round holes had been cut into the walls and ceilings, leading the landlord to suspect that the property had been used for an unlawful purpose. There was significant debris on the floor caused by these alterations.
Because the premises have been abandoned, and rent is in arrear, the tenancy is terminated immediately. Exemplary damages
A tenant commits an unlawful act if they abandon the premises when the rent is in arrears. Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. The tenants abandoned the property without providing any reasons for doing so, and in suspicious circumstances. The rent was significantly in arrears on 14 June 2023. I find that the tenants have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest (section 109(3) of the Act).
The tenants abandoned the property, leaving behind significant damage and rent arrears. At some stage they changed the locks, most likely with the intention to prevent the landlord (or the authorities) from accessing the property. I find that the unlawful act was committed intentionally and that it would be just to award exemplary damages in the sum of $500.00.
Exemplary damages were also claimed pursuant to section 40(2)(b) of the Act (use of the premises for any unlawful purpose). Exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00 may be awarded.
The landlord pointed to the circular holes in the walls and ceilings and fertilizer found in the garage as evidence of criminal behaviour. There is no independent evidence (for example, from the Police) confirming that the structural changes are consistent with modifications for drug manufacture. The alterations and damage do at least raise a strong suspicion that the premises were used for an unlawful purpose. Combined with the tenants changing the locks, and their apparent disabling of a smoke alarm (itself an unlawful act) there is sufficient evidence to make a finding on the civil standard of proof. While the evidence is circumstantial, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the property was used for the growing or manufacture of illegal drugs.
After considering the factors in section 109(3) of the Act, I find that the unlawful act was committed intentionally and that it would be just to award exemplary damages in the sum of $600.00. The use of the property for an unlawful purpose has resulted in significant damage.
I have considered the claim for an award of exemplary damages pursuant to section 42(B)(6) (tenant failing to reinstate premises at end of tenancy following minor change). Exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be awarded.
I consider that exemplary damages are not available under this provision, because there was no request for the landlord to consent to a minor change under section 42A of the Act.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. I understood the property has not been re-let and the landlord is still tidying up. This was a fixed term tenancy until 7 February 2024. The landlord is entitled to rent until the property is re-let or the fixed term expires, whichever is earlier (section 61(3)(b)).
Water charges have not been paid. The landlord provided water invoices to support the claim.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s photographs show significant debris from the deliberate damage to the property.
The tenants did not return the keys and changed the locks. The landlord had to call out a locksmith to gain entry to the property, to conduct an inspection to ascertain whether the property had been abandoned.

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.
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 4 weeks' rent.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
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 (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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
Some of the damage caused during the tenancy has already been described above. Various doors were also taken off internal wardrobes, and there were hooks in the ceilings. The entry electrical cable had to be re-wired. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. As the landlord submitted, it is likely the damage was deliberate, or alternatively, resulted from an activity that is an imprisonable offence (sections 6 and 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971).
I have taken account of betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. I have discounted the claim for repairs to the walls and ceilings to reflect the fact that these areas were at least 5 years old. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord’s application has succeeded. I award the filing fee.
I grant name suppression as requested.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4606059 — net $13,346.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$7,380.00	Rent arrears
Water rates	$24.71	Water rates
Lock/key replacement	$480.00	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning	$851.00	Cleaning
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$230.00	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Repairs	$6,440.00	Repairs
Exemplary damages - abandonment	$600.00	Exemplary damages - abandonment
Exemplary damages - unlawful use	$600.00	Exemplary damages - unlawful use
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$13,346.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$13,346.15

Claims and awards for application 4606059 — net $13,346.15 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Rent arrears

Amount: $7,380.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Rent arrears

Water rates

Amount: $24.71
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Lock/key replacement

Amount: $480.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lock/key replacement

Cleaning

Amount: $851.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Electrical fittings replacement/repair

Amount: $230.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Electrical fittings replacement/repair

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Exemplary damages Filing Fee Property damage Rent arrears Water Rates

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The tenancy of Julie D'avignon and Allan Xiao Chen Shao at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], immediately.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,280.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Julie D'avignon and Allan Xiao Chen Shao must pay [The landlord/s] $13,346.15 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing today. There was no appearance from the tenants.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for abandonment, rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, and refund of the bond.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate the tenancy where the premises have been abandoned and rent is in arrear at the hearing date (section 61 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)). A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises, not intending to return or to meet their obligations, and fails to notify the landlord.
The landlord became aware that the tenants had abandoned the premises on 14 June 2023, when the landlord conducted an inspection. The tenants had changed the locks without permission, taken all their personal belongings and left a few items of furniture. The property was found to be extensively damaged with varying degrees of damage to the walls and ceilings. In particular, several large round holes had been cut into the walls and ceilings, leading the landlord to suspect that the property had been used for an unlawful purpose. There was significant debris on the floor caused by these alterations.
Because the premises have been abandoned, and rent is in arrear, the tenancy is terminated immediately. Exemplary damages
A tenant commits an unlawful act if they abandon the premises when the rent is in arrears. Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. The tenants abandoned the property without providing any reasons for doing so, and in suspicious circumstances. The rent was significantly in arrears on 14 June 2023. I find that the tenants have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest (section 109(3) of the Act).
The tenants abandoned the property, leaving behind significant damage and rent arrears. At some stage they changed the locks, most likely with the intention to prevent the landlord (or the authorities) from accessing the property. I find that the unlawful act was committed intentionally and that it would be just to award exemplary damages in the sum of $500.00.
Exemplary damages were also claimed pursuant to section 40(2)(b) of the Act (use of the premises for any unlawful purpose). Exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800.00 may be awarded.
The landlord pointed to the circular holes in the walls and ceilings and fertilizer found in the garage as evidence of criminal behaviour. There is no independent evidence (for example, from the Police) confirming that the structural changes are consistent with modifications for drug manufacture. The alterations and damage do at least raise a strong suspicion that the premises were used for an unlawful purpose. Combined with the tenants changing the locks, and their apparent disabling of a smoke alarm (itself an unlawful act) there is sufficient evidence to make a finding on the civil standard of proof. While the evidence is circumstantial, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the property was used for the growing or manufacture of illegal drugs.
After considering the factors in section 109(3) of the Act, I find that the unlawful act was committed intentionally and that it would be just to award exemplary damages in the sum of $600.00. The use of the property for an unlawful purpose has resulted in significant damage.
I have considered the claim for an award of exemplary damages pursuant to section 42(B)(6) (tenant failing to reinstate premises at end of tenancy following minor change). Exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00 may be awarded.
I consider that exemplary damages are not available under this provision, because there was no request for the landlord to consent to a minor change under section 42A of the Act.

How much does the tenant owe?

The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. I understood the property has not been re-let and the landlord is still tidying up. This was a fixed term tenancy until 7 February 2024. The landlord is entitled to rent until the property is re-let or the fixed term expires, whichever is earlier (section 61(3)(b)).
Water charges have not been paid. The landlord provided water invoices to support the claim.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord’s photographs show significant debris from the deliberate damage to the property.
The tenants did not return the keys and changed the locks. The landlord had to call out a locksmith to gain entry to the property, to conduct an inspection to ascertain whether the property had been abandoned.

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.
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 4 weeks' rent.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
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 (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 (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
Some of the damage caused during the tenancy has already been described above. Various doors were also taken off internal wardrobes, and there were hooks in the ceilings. The entry electrical cable had to be re-wired. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. As the landlord submitted, it is likely the damage was deliberate, or alternatively, resulted from an activity that is an imprisonable offence (sections 6 and 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971).
I have taken account of betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenants not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. I have discounted the claim for repairs to the walls and ceilings to reflect the fact that these areas were at least 5 years old. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord’s application has succeeded. I award the filing fee.
I grant name suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4606059 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4606059 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much does the tenant owe?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

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

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much does the tenant owe?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions