What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4606062 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 4606062?

Cleaning: $816.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,167.26 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $1,750.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $445.51 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,625.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: missing wardrob…: $110.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,013.02 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $775.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,504.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $354.00 awarded to landlord; Secure Garage To Store Goods: $268.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4606062?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4606062?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9353328-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4606062 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 4606062?

Cleaning: $816.50 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $1,167.26 awarded to landlord; Compensation: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $250.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $130.00 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $1,750.00 awarded to landlord; Pest Control: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $445.51 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,625.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: missing wardrob…: $110.98 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,013.02 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $775.71 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,504.20 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $354.00 awarded to landlord; Secure Garage To Store Goods: $268.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4606062?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4606062?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9353328-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4606062 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4606062 — net $9,130.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,625.00	Rent arrears
Replace furnishings: missing wardrobe door handle and door stop	$110.98	Replace furnishings: missing wardrobe door handle and door stop
Lock/key replacement	$445.51	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal: and move goods to garage	$1,504.20	Rubbish removal: and move goods to garage
Pest control	$550.00	Pest control
Secure garage to store goods	$268.32	Secure garage to store goods
Cleaning	$1,167.26	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and exterior cleaning	$775.71	Rubbish removal: and exterior cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$816.50	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal: after 35 days storage to dump	$1,013.02	Rubbish removal: after 35 days storage to dump
Lawns and Garden work	$130.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal: skip bin	$354.00	Rubbish removal: skip bin
Two weeks lost rent	$1,750.00	Two weeks lost rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages - failure to quit premises	$250.00	Exemplary damages - failure to quit premises
__________________________________________________________________________________ 46060622 Exemplary damages - remove o	$500.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 46060622 Exemplary damages - remove o
Compensation - breach quiet enjoyment of neighbour	$350.00	Compensation - breach quiet enjoyment of neighbour
Net award	$9,130.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,130.94

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Caroline McKenzi Te Tomo must pay [The landlord/s] $9,130.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord’s representative attended the hearing today. The tenant did not attend. I continued in her absence because the file shows she has been notified of the date and time of the hearing.
The landlord has applied for payment of rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent arrears
The tenancy ended on 15 May 2023 by previous order of the Tribunal under application 4531810.
The landlord regained possession on 1 June 2023 after bailiff assistance to evict the occupants.
The landlord has provided a rent ledger which proves the amount owing to 1 June 2023 as $2,625.00. I award this amount for rent arrears.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This is a large house with seven bedrooms, two bathrooms and a single, detached garage. There are gardens and lawns.
The landlord has provided comprehensive evidence to establish the condition of the premises at the start as compared to the end of the tenancy. My decisions on the claims are listed below.
One wardrobe door handle and door-stop were discovered to have been removed and were missing at an inspection in March 2023. I award the replacement cost of $110.98.
Eight keys were supplied at the start of tenancy, and none were returned. I award $445.51 being the cost to rekey the house and replace the keys.
A large quantity of furniture (some broken), household appliances, mattresses, toys and personal effects (including clothes) were left both inside and outside the premises and in the garage. Some of the items were in good condition and I agree that the landlord was correct to first move these to the garage and secure them until the tenant could be contacted. I award the costs of this work.
Many rubbish bags were left in various locations outside. Other loose rubbish was scattered in the grounds and found inside the house. A contractor removed food waste on the day of eviction to avoid further decay and pests and disposed of all rubbish using a skip bin, special disposal of three tyres, and at the dump. These costs are reasonable for the work required and are awarded.
The tenant did not respond to the landlord’s enquiries about collecting any of her belongings. These were disposed of as the cost to continue storing them was most probably more than their value. I award this cost.
The house was dirty (including walls and windows) and the carpet was stained in many of the rooms. I award the costs of pest treatment, cleaning, and carpet cleaning and stain removal.
The lawns needed mowing and weeds to be removed. This claim is awarded.
Invoices were supplied for all claims, so the amounts ordered are proved. Minor damage
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.
It is proven that there was one small hole in the wall in the stairwell, a missing window latch and door stop, and damaged garage door roller. I am satisfied that the damage is more than wear and tear and probably careless damage.
All repairs were completed at a modest cost included within one invoice which also included the removal of exterior rubbish. The claim is awarded in full as it is less than the insurance excess ($1,000.00 per item). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. Compensation for lost rent
The premises were able to be re-tenanted after 5 weeks. The landlord claims lost rent for two weeks which is $1,750.00.
Losses must be "reasonably forseeable" or arise according to the usual course of things or be naturally related to the breach. A party also has a duty to mitigate any loss such as to undertake repairs and take steps to re-tenant a property in a timely way.
In this case, I agree that the rubbish removal, pest treatment, and cleaning work required was extensive and added to the time taken before the property could reasonably be advertised for rental by new tenants. I award this claim. Failure to quit the premises at the end of the tenancy
[The landlord/s] has proved that the tenant did not vacate the premises on 15 May 2023, the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy; s40(1)(e)(i) RTA. Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00; s40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord allowed the tenant and her family extra days to vacate but says that she stopped communicating after 3 days. The tenant remained in possession for more than two weeks.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant and other occupants intentionally remained at the house after the tenancy had legally ended.
I have no evidence as to the tenant’s intent. The effect of the failure to move out on time was to delay the process of re-letting the property. A landlord’s interests are that it regains possession and minimise loss and any further costs or damage. There is a public interest in signalling to tenants that they must continue to communicate with landlords about the vacate process. I do consider it just to award exemplary damages however the award of two weeks of lost rent has largely addressed the loss to the landlord. I take this into account and award modest exemplary damages of $250.00. Removal of one smoke alarm
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence shows that the smoke alarm in “bedroom 1” had been taken down. The landlord’s agent found the alarm elsewhere in the room. This is an unlawful act.
The removal of the smoke alarm is an intentional act by either the tenant or someone at the premises with the permission of the tenant.
I do not have direct evidence about the intent or reason for taking down the alarm. I note that there were cigarette butts found at the premises (although not in this bedroom) and that this is a common reason for people taking down a smoke alarm.
The effect of removing a smoke alarm is to put the occupants of the house and the property at risk if there is a fire. Four other smoke alarms were left in place which mitigated the risk to some extent.
The interests of a landlord are that smoke alarms are all working correctly. Tampering with an alarm may jeopardise insurance on any claim for loss from fire.
There is a public interest in indicating to tenants that they must make sure that all smoke alarms are in place and working properly. It is a matter of safety and saves lives.
I do consider that it is just to award exemplary damages of $500.00. I have taken into account that four alarms were still in place. Harassment of neighbours
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has caused or permitted the disturbance of their neighbours.
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. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment “indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The evidence shows that there were a number of occurrences of loud music that disturbed more than one neighbour and that children living at or visiting the premises annoyed and interrupted neighbours and other people using the street by blocking the road and driveways on bicycles. There was also one serious incident where a neighbour was assaulted and threatened after approaching the occupants of this property to ask them to reduce their noise. This event is detailed in previous Tribunal order 4531810.
A tenant is legally responsible for the behaviour of anyone they allow to be on the premises; s41 RTA. However, after careful consideration, I have decided not to make a finding of harassment. I find it probable that the tenant herself was not responsible for the disruptive behaviour and also that this was not an ongoing deliberate campaign against the neighbours so was not “harassment” in this sense. This means that exemplary damages do not apply.
The various incidents were, however, a breach of the quiet enjoyment of neighbours. The Tribunal can award general damages where appropriate, and I do so here. The landlord navigated numerous complaints from neighbours, the assault was reported to the police, and the previous Tribunal application arose from those incidents. I award compensation of $350.00. Filing fee, suppression of name, refund of bond
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claims. I award the filing fee and suppress the landlord’s name.
The bond is refunded to the landlord. The balance is payable by the tenant.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4606062 — net $9,130.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears	$2,625.00	Rent arrears
Replace furnishings: missing wardrobe door handle and door stop	$110.98	Replace furnishings: missing wardrobe door handle and door stop
Lock/key replacement	$445.51	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal: and move goods to garage	$1,504.20	Rubbish removal: and move goods to garage
Pest control	$550.00	Pest control
Secure garage to store goods	$268.32	Secure garage to store goods
Cleaning	$1,167.26	Cleaning
Rubbish removal: and exterior cleaning	$775.71	Rubbish removal: and exterior cleaning
Carpet Cleaning	$816.50	Carpet Cleaning
Rubbish removal: after 35 days storage to dump	$1,013.02	Rubbish removal: after 35 days storage to dump
Lawns and Garden work	$130.00	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal: skip bin	$354.00	Rubbish removal: skip bin
Two weeks lost rent	$1,750.00	Two weeks lost rent
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Exemplary damages - failure to quit premises	$250.00	Exemplary damages - failure to quit premises
__________________________________________________________________________________ 46060622 Exemplary damages - remove o	$500.00	__________________________________________________________________________________ 46060622 Exemplary damages - remove o
Compensation - breach quiet enjoyment of neighbour	$350.00	Compensation - breach quiet enjoyment of neighbour
Net award	$9,130.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,130.94

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Caroline McKenzi Te Tomo must pay [The landlord/s] $9,130.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,500.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord’s representative attended the hearing today. The tenant did not attend. I continued in her absence because the file shows she has been notified of the date and time of the hearing.
The landlord has applied for payment of rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent arrears
The tenancy ended on 15 May 2023 by previous order of the Tribunal under application 4531810.
The landlord regained possession on 1 June 2023 after bailiff assistance to evict the occupants.
The landlord has provided a rent ledger which proves the amount owing to 1 June 2023 as $2,625.00. I award this amount for rent arrears.

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. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
This is a large house with seven bedrooms, two bathrooms and a single, detached garage. There are gardens and lawns.
The landlord has provided comprehensive evidence to establish the condition of the premises at the start as compared to the end of the tenancy. My decisions on the claims are listed below.
One wardrobe door handle and door-stop were discovered to have been removed and were missing at an inspection in March 2023. I award the replacement cost of $110.98.
Eight keys were supplied at the start of tenancy, and none were returned. I award $445.51 being the cost to rekey the house and replace the keys.
A large quantity of furniture (some broken), household appliances, mattresses, toys and personal effects (including clothes) were left both inside and outside the premises and in the garage. Some of the items were in good condition and I agree that the landlord was correct to first move these to the garage and secure them until the tenant could be contacted. I award the costs of this work.
Many rubbish bags were left in various locations outside. Other loose rubbish was scattered in the grounds and found inside the house. A contractor removed food waste on the day of eviction to avoid further decay and pests and disposed of all rubbish using a skip bin, special disposal of three tyres, and at the dump. These costs are reasonable for the work required and are awarded.
The tenant did not respond to the landlord’s enquiries about collecting any of her belongings. These were disposed of as the cost to continue storing them was most probably more than their value. I award this cost.
The house was dirty (including walls and windows) and the carpet was stained in many of the rooms. I award the costs of pest treatment, cleaning, and carpet cleaning and stain removal.
The lawns needed mowing and weeds to be removed. This claim is awarded.
Invoices were supplied for all claims, so the amounts ordered are proved. Minor damage
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.
It is proven that there was one small hole in the wall in the stairwell, a missing window latch and door stop, and damaged garage door roller. I am satisfied that the damage is more than wear and tear and probably careless damage.
All repairs were completed at a modest cost included within one invoice which also included the removal of exterior rubbish. The claim is awarded in full as it is less than the insurance excess ($1,000.00 per item). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. Compensation for lost rent
The premises were able to be re-tenanted after 5 weeks. The landlord claims lost rent for two weeks which is $1,750.00.
Losses must be "reasonably forseeable" or arise according to the usual course of things or be naturally related to the breach. A party also has a duty to mitigate any loss such as to undertake repairs and take steps to re-tenant a property in a timely way.
In this case, I agree that the rubbish removal, pest treatment, and cleaning work required was extensive and added to the time taken before the property could reasonably be advertised for rental by new tenants. I award this claim. Failure to quit the premises at the end of the tenancy
[The landlord/s] has proved that the tenant did not vacate the premises on 15 May 2023, the date the tenancy ended.
A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy; s40(1)(e)(i) RTA. Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00; s40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The landlord allowed the tenant and her family extra days to vacate but says that she stopped communicating after 3 days. The tenant remained in possession for more than two weeks.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenant and other occupants intentionally remained at the house after the tenancy had legally ended.
I have no evidence as to the tenant’s intent. The effect of the failure to move out on time was to delay the process of re-letting the property. A landlord’s interests are that it regains possession and minimise loss and any further costs or damage. There is a public interest in signalling to tenants that they must continue to communicate with landlords about the vacate process. I do consider it just to award exemplary damages however the award of two weeks of lost rent has largely addressed the loss to the landlord. I take this into account and award modest exemplary damages of $250.00. Removal of one smoke alarm
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has removed or interfered with the smoke alarms.
A tenant must not cause or permit any interference with, or render inoperative, any means of escape from fire within the meaning of the Building Act 2004. See section 40(2)(ab) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The definition of “means of escape” includes “all active and passive protection features required to warn people of fire...”, which covers smoke alarms.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $4,000.00. See section 40(3A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence shows that the smoke alarm in “bedroom 1” had been taken down. The landlord’s agent found the alarm elsewhere in the room. This is an unlawful act.
The removal of the smoke alarm is an intentional act by either the tenant or someone at the premises with the permission of the tenant.
I do not have direct evidence about the intent or reason for taking down the alarm. I note that there were cigarette butts found at the premises (although not in this bedroom) and that this is a common reason for people taking down a smoke alarm.
The effect of removing a smoke alarm is to put the occupants of the house and the property at risk if there is a fire. Four other smoke alarms were left in place which mitigated the risk to some extent.
The interests of a landlord are that smoke alarms are all working correctly. Tampering with an alarm may jeopardise insurance on any claim for loss from fire.
There is a public interest in indicating to tenants that they must make sure that all smoke alarms are in place and working properly. It is a matter of safety and saves lives.
I do consider that it is just to award exemplary damages of $500.00. I have taken into account that four alarms were still in place. Harassment of neighbours
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has caused or permitted the disturbance of their neighbours.
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. See section 40(2)(c) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Harassment “indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The evidence shows that there were a number of occurrences of loud music that disturbed more than one neighbour and that children living at or visiting the premises annoyed and interrupted neighbours and other people using the street by blocking the road and driveways on bicycles. There was also one serious incident where a neighbour was assaulted and threatened after approaching the occupants of this property to ask them to reduce their noise. This event is detailed in previous Tribunal order 4531810.
A tenant is legally responsible for the behaviour of anyone they allow to be on the premises; s41 RTA. However, after careful consideration, I have decided not to make a finding of harassment. I find it probable that the tenant herself was not responsible for the disruptive behaviour and also that this was not an ongoing deliberate campaign against the neighbours so was not “harassment” in this sense. This means that exemplary damages do not apply.
The various incidents were, however, a breach of the quiet enjoyment of neighbours. The Tribunal can award general damages where appropriate, and I do so here. The landlord navigated numerous complaints from neighbours, the assault was reported to the police, and the previous Tribunal application arose from those incidents. I award compensation of $350.00. Filing fee, suppression of name, refund of bond
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claims. I award the filing fee and suppress the landlord’s name.
The bond is refunded to the landlord. The balance is payable by the tenant.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4606062 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4606062 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions