What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4613610 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 4613610?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4613610?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4613610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9369139-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4613610 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 4613610?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4613610?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4613610?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9369139-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4613610 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4613610 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Order

This order corrects and replaces the order dated 31 August 2023:

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Deidre Ann Te Anga must pay [The landlord/s] 3.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 7 February 2022 and ended on 7 June 2023 as a result of the tenant giving notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy premises is the end unit of three units. The unit has two bedrooms. In The unit’s garage (referred to as the “converted garage”), which is under the same roofline as the unit and the other two units in the block, has been converted into a room, which the landlord refers to as a rumpus room. The converted garage has no internal access to the unit. It has its own separate, external access via a sliding door. The converted garage is additional to the two bedrooms.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Rent: The rent was in arrears at the end of the tenancy. The tenant agreed for the bond ($2,400) to be released to the landlord and used to reduce the arrears owed before the tenancy ended. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy after the bond was applied to reduce the arrears.
Water rates: The tenancy agreement records that the tenant is liable for water rates. The landlord seeks $451.26 in water rates for the period 1 December 2022 until 7 June 2023. The landlord has presented a photograph of the water meter reading as at 7 June 2023 and the water rates invoice from the Council for the period 1 December 2022 to 1 June 2023. I am satisfied that the amount claimed is for water used by the tenant for the period 1 December 2022 to 7 June 2023.
The landlord has not claimed water rates for the period 4 July 2022 (when water charges were introduced in [Town]) to 1 December 2022 ($255.067).

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 (RTA).
The evidence establishes that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, including that the carpet needed cleaning, and rubbish/goods were not removed. Email communication from the tenant shows that the tenant accepted the carpet needed cleaning and there was rubbish, including unwanted belongings, left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord explained that as she contracted covid before the tenancy started she was unable to complete all of the garden work before the tenant moved in. I note that the work not completed was the removal of dead weeds (after they had been sprayed) in one garden. Regardless, I am satisfied that during the tenancy the landlord twice had the gardens weeded and tidied at its cost, even though the tenancy agreement states that garden maintenance is the responsibility of the tenant.
The photographs show that the tenant did not leave the grounds in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. They also establish that the gardens were in a significantly worse state at the end of the tenancy than at the beginning, including that there were dog faeces that needed removing. The amount awarded for lawns and garden work includes the damage to the lawn as set out below.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. 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 (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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) Kitchen Panel:
The kitchen panel adjacent to the fridge was water damaged. The tenant maintained in her emails to the landlord that the damage was caused by the dishwasher leaking. I am persuaded by the landlord’s evidence that the dishwasher had not leaked as there was no sign of a water damage to the kick board or flooring under the dishwasher. The fridge was the tenant’s fridge. I find the damage was carelessly caused and that the tenant is liable for the landlord’s insurance excess of $550.00. b) Net curtain:
The net curtain on the sliding door in the converted garage was ripped during the tenancy. I am satisfied that the damage was the result of careless use. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position it would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations and should not be better or worse off. I find the net curtain was new at the start of the tenancy and has a useful life span of around three years. I consider 45% of the life span of the curtain had passed by the end of the tenancy and awarded $19.25, being 55% of the cost of a replacement curtain. c) Compensation for damage to the lawn
The landlord claims $600.00, being one week’s rent, to clean up the section and house to a rentable state due to the damage caused by pets and extra persons living in the premises. The claim includes the garden work already considered above and damage to the lawn.
A landlord is expected to carry out work, particularly maintenance and cleaning, between tenancies. Therefore compensation is not based on the loss of a week’s rent but is based on the loss suffered by the landlord as a result of a breach. Accordingly this part of the claim is considered in relation to the damage to the lawn.
The landlord’s evidence, including photographs, establishes that the lawn was damaged during the tenancy. There was a dog at the property for some of the tenancy. The landlord understood the dog belonged to the tenant’s son and spent periods of time at the premises, rather than living there permanently. The photographs show there were holes in the lawn at the end of the tenancy which needed to be filled with soil and sown with grass seed. The holes are consistent with the type of hole a dog would dig. The tenancy agreement states that the tenant is not allowed pets at the premises.
In addition cars have been driven onto and parked on the lawn, which has caused damage. The tenancy agreement states that the tenant is to park at the top of the driveway in front of the unit. The photographs show there was ample room on the driveway for the tenant to park her car and no need for the tenant to park on the grass. As set out below, the tenant has had others staying at the premises; I am satisfied that the number of persons staying at the premises has meant cars have been parked on the lawn. The tenant is liable for the cost of putting the lawn back into a reasonable state.
I find the damage to the lawn was intentional as a) the tenant was given a 14 day notice to remove the dog and cat/s at the premises, and b) the damage to the lawn would have occurred over a period of time and been obvious. A total of $240.00 for lawn damage and tidying the gardens (as set out above in paragraphs 11-12) is awarded as well as the cost of the grass seed ($11.98). Did the number of people living in the premises exceed the number allowed under the tenancy agreement? Did the tenant sublet the premises?

If so, is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages?

When a provision of the RTA is breached which is stated to be an unlawful act then the Tribunal can consider awarding exemplary damages. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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. 1
Exemplary damages are not compensatory in nature, but are a penalty that is applied in cases of serious breach, to mark the Tribunals’ disapproval of the manner in which that occurred and deter a party from future such offences.
[The landlord/s] claims the number of people living at the premises exceeded the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement, and that the tenant sublet part of the premises to others.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded 2 . Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. 3 1 Section 109 and Schedule 1A, RTA 2 Section 40(3) RTA 3 Section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A RTA
A tenancy agreement may include a provision that expressly and unconditionally prohibits the tenant from subletting or parting with possession of the premises during the term of the tenancy. 4 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 5
The tenancy agreement states that the maximum number of persons who can live at the premises is three. The landlord understood from the tenant that she and her two children would be living in the premises.
The landlord’s evidence establishes that the tenant had a family of four living in the converted garage. Direct evidence was given at the hearing by a person in the neighbourhood, that the family were living there for at least several months during the tenant’s tenancy. The landlord says the family were cooking in the room, which she said was apparent from the strong cooking smells in the room which took a lot of effort and cleaning to remove. The landlord presented photographs of boxes of food, including vegetables, that were in a shed on the premises when she carried out an inspection. The photograph also shows a chemical toilet in the shed.
The landlord presented a Facebook post from the tenant uploaded during her tenancy that states: “Central [Town] room for rent. My wonderful French couple have brought a campervan, and will be exploring NZ. Their room will be available this week. 2 mins walk to town, and harbour, 5 min walk to wharf. $250pw includes rent, power, gas hotwater, unlimited fibre WiFi, lawns &rubbish fees. Couples are fine. No animals unfortunately. Living with me a 48 year old Nurse.”
The landlord was contacted by [Region] District Council in November 2022 regarding concerns it had about the tenant’s public posts on [Town] and [City] Facebook grapevines that she had tent sites available for rent. The Council attached the following post from the tenant to its communication with the landlord: “Welcome you gorgeous people I am a local in [Town], due to the lack of affordable accommodation issue in [Town], I have started a “Tent in the backyard” initiative. Bring your tent and linen. I supply power, fibre Wi-Fi, unlimited gas hot water, bathroom, toilet laundry facilities. Gas BBQ, gas cookers, fridge and microwave, all cups and cutlery. Sound splash? New year? We have a Saturday Disney movie night for children. Central walking to town and wharf Book in fast as limited space. 4 Section 44(a), RTA. 5 Section 44 (2A)(b) and Schedule 1A, RTA. $15 per night single person $25 per night couple $10 per night children 13 or over Children under 13 free.”
The landlord did not provide evidence confirming that the tenant had rented camp spaces to others. However the post shows a clear intention to do so.
After considering the evidence presented I am satisfied there were more than 3 people living at the premises during the tenancy. This was the case for at least the time that the family of four were living in the converted garage.
I also find the evidence establishes the tenant was subletting the converted garage. The fact that the occupants of the converted garage were cooking in the room in my view shows that they were not considered flatmates, but that they had the exclusive use of that room to live in and were subletting it. The presence of the chemical toilet in the shed along with the boxes of food supports this view, albeit that I accept the shower/bathroom were shared facilities.
I find the actions of the tenant were intentional in renting out the converted garage to others. Ensuring that the converted garage was cleared out of any personal belongings, food etc when the landlord carried out inspections establishes the tenant knew she was not allowed to be renting that room out. The posts for renting out tent spaces clearly show intention to have yet more people on the site.
The tenant has shown a blatant disregard for the terms of the tenancy and for others in the neighbourhood, particularly those in the adjoining units, in having more than the number of persons she was allowed in the premises and in advertising the availability of tent spaces. Cooking in rooms other than kitchens is a fire hazard; [Town] is a rural community with a volunteer fire brigade. The adjoining units are all under the same roof line. In addition the more people in the unit increase the comings and goings to the unit. As this is a back unit this means more vehicle and foot traffic passed the other two units, as well as potentially more noise.
The effect on the landlord includes that the unit has more wear and tear than expected under the terms of the tenancy agreement and more than is reasonable. The landlord has not claimed for all damage and repairs needed at the end of the tenancy. The wear on the shower, including the dent in the base, and that the door to the shower kept coming off during the tenancy is disconcerting given that it was a new shower at the start of the tenancy. The kitchen bench has cuts in it, the mesh over the sliding door was irreparably damaged and the door handle broken.
As I have stated above, exemplary damages are a penalty applied in cases of serious breach. I find this is such a case, and that it is just to award exemplary damages in this instance to an extent that will strongly deter the tenant from any future breach of the same nature. Accordingly I award $750.00 in exemplary damages for exceeding the maximum number allowed to live in the premises under the tenancy agreement, and $1,000.00 for subletting.
As the landlord has been successful in its application reimbursement of the filing fee and suppression of its name and the identifying details of the tenancy are ordered. 6

Order

This order corrects and replaces the order dated 31 August 2023:

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Deidre Ann Te Anga must pay [The landlord/s] 3.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing but the tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenancy started on 7 February 2022 and ended on 7 June 2023 as a result of the tenant giving notice to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy premises is the end unit of three units. The unit has two bedrooms. In The unit’s garage (referred to as the “converted garage”), which is under the same roofline as the unit and the other two units in the block, has been converted into a room, which the landlord refers to as a rumpus room. The converted garage has no internal access to the unit. It has its own separate, external access via a sliding door. The converted garage is additional to the two bedrooms.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

Rent: The rent was in arrears at the end of the tenancy. The tenant agreed for the bond ($2,400) to be released to the landlord and used to reduce the arrears owed before the tenancy ended. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy after the bond was applied to reduce the arrears.
Water rates: The tenancy agreement records that the tenant is liable for water rates. The landlord seeks $451.26 in water rates for the period 1 December 2022 until 7 June 2023. The landlord has presented a photograph of the water meter reading as at 7 June 2023 and the water rates invoice from the Council for the period 1 December 2022 to 1 June 2023. I am satisfied that the amount claimed is for water used by the tenant for the period 1 December 2022 to 7 June 2023.
The landlord has not claimed water rates for the period 4 July 2022 (when water charges were introduced in [Town]) to 1 December 2022 ($255.067).

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 (RTA).
The evidence establishes that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, including that the carpet needed cleaning, and rubbish/goods were not removed. Email communication from the tenant shows that the tenant accepted the carpet needed cleaning and there was rubbish, including unwanted belongings, left at the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord explained that as she contracted covid before the tenancy started she was unable to complete all of the garden work before the tenant moved in. I note that the work not completed was the removal of dead weeds (after they had been sprayed) in one garden. Regardless, I am satisfied that during the tenancy the landlord twice had the gardens weeded and tidied at its cost, even though the tenancy agreement states that garden maintenance is the responsibility of the tenant.
The photographs show that the tenant did not leave the grounds in a reasonably clean and tidy state at the end of the tenancy. They also establish that the gardens were in a significantly worse state at the end of the tenancy than at the beginning, including that there were dog faeces that needed removing. The amount awarded for lawns and garden work includes the damage to the lawn as set out below.
The amounts ordered are proved.

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. 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 (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.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) Kitchen Panel:
The kitchen panel adjacent to the fridge was water damaged. The tenant maintained in her emails to the landlord that the damage was caused by the dishwasher leaking. I am persuaded by the landlord’s evidence that the dishwasher had not leaked as there was no sign of a water damage to the kick board or flooring under the dishwasher. The fridge was the tenant’s fridge. I find the damage was carelessly caused and that the tenant is liable for the landlord’s insurance excess of $550.00. b) Net curtain:
The net curtain on the sliding door in the converted garage was ripped during the tenancy. I am satisfied that the damage was the result of careless use. I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position it would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations and should not be better or worse off. I find the net curtain was new at the start of the tenancy and has a useful life span of around three years. I consider 45% of the life span of the curtain had passed by the end of the tenancy and awarded $19.25, being 55% of the cost of a replacement curtain. c) Compensation for damage to the lawn
The landlord claims $600.00, being one week’s rent, to clean up the section and house to a rentable state due to the damage caused by pets and extra persons living in the premises. The claim includes the garden work already considered above and damage to the lawn.
A landlord is expected to carry out work, particularly maintenance and cleaning, between tenancies. Therefore compensation is not based on the loss of a week’s rent but is based on the loss suffered by the landlord as a result of a breach. Accordingly this part of the claim is considered in relation to the damage to the lawn.
The landlord’s evidence, including photographs, establishes that the lawn was damaged during the tenancy. There was a dog at the property for some of the tenancy. The landlord understood the dog belonged to the tenant’s son and spent periods of time at the premises, rather than living there permanently. The photographs show there were holes in the lawn at the end of the tenancy which needed to be filled with soil and sown with grass seed. The holes are consistent with the type of hole a dog would dig. The tenancy agreement states that the tenant is not allowed pets at the premises.
In addition cars have been driven onto and parked on the lawn, which has caused damage. The tenancy agreement states that the tenant is to park at the top of the driveway in front of the unit. The photographs show there was ample room on the driveway for the tenant to park her car and no need for the tenant to park on the grass. As set out below, the tenant has had others staying at the premises; I am satisfied that the number of persons staying at the premises has meant cars have been parked on the lawn. The tenant is liable for the cost of putting the lawn back into a reasonable state.
I find the damage to the lawn was intentional as a) the tenant was given a 14 day notice to remove the dog and cat/s at the premises, and b) the damage to the lawn would have occurred over a period of time and been obvious. A total of $240.00 for lawn damage and tidying the gardens (as set out above in paragraphs 11-12) is awarded as well as the cost of the grass seed ($11.98). Did the number of people living in the premises exceed the number allowed under the tenancy agreement? Did the tenant sublet the premises?

If so, is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages?

When a provision of the RTA is breached which is stated to be an unlawful act then the Tribunal can consider awarding exemplary damages. Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that 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. 1
Exemplary damages are not compensatory in nature, but are a penalty that is applied in cases of serious breach, to mark the Tribunals’ disapproval of the manner in which that occurred and deter a party from future such offences.
[The landlord/s] claims the number of people living at the premises exceeded the maximum number allowed in the tenancy agreement, and that the tenant sublet part of the premises to others.
Where the tenancy agreement specifies the maximum number of persons that may ordinarily reside in the premises during the tenancy, the tenant must ensure that the number is not exceeded 2 . Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,000.00. 3 1 Section 109 and Schedule 1A, RTA 2 Section 40(3) RTA 3 Section 40(3A)(e) and Schedule 1A RTA
A tenancy agreement may include a provision that expressly and unconditionally prohibits the tenant from subletting or parting with possession of the premises during the term of the tenancy. 4 Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. 5
The tenancy agreement states that the maximum number of persons who can live at the premises is three. The landlord understood from the tenant that she and her two children would be living in the premises.
The landlord’s evidence establishes that the tenant had a family of four living in the converted garage. Direct evidence was given at the hearing by a person in the neighbourhood, that the family were living there for at least several months during the tenant’s tenancy. The landlord says the family were cooking in the room, which she said was apparent from the strong cooking smells in the room which took a lot of effort and cleaning to remove. The landlord presented photographs of boxes of food, including vegetables, that were in a shed on the premises when she carried out an inspection. The photograph also shows a chemical toilet in the shed.
The landlord presented a Facebook post from the tenant uploaded during her tenancy that states: “Central [Town] room for rent. My wonderful French couple have brought a campervan, and will be exploring NZ. Their room will be available this week. 2 mins walk to town, and harbour, 5 min walk to wharf. $250pw includes rent, power, gas hotwater, unlimited fibre WiFi, lawns &rubbish fees. Couples are fine. No animals unfortunately. Living with me a 48 year old Nurse.”
The landlord was contacted by [Region] District Council in November 2022 regarding concerns it had about the tenant’s public posts on [Town] and [City] Facebook grapevines that she had tent sites available for rent. The Council attached the following post from the tenant to its communication with the landlord: “Welcome you gorgeous people I am a local in [Town], due to the lack of affordable accommodation issue in [Town], I have started a “Tent in the backyard” initiative. Bring your tent and linen. I supply power, fibre Wi-Fi, unlimited gas hot water, bathroom, toilet laundry facilities. Gas BBQ, gas cookers, fridge and microwave, all cups and cutlery. Sound splash? New year? We have a Saturday Disney movie night for children. Central walking to town and wharf Book in fast as limited space. 4 Section 44(a), RTA. 5 Section 44 (2A)(b) and Schedule 1A, RTA. $15 per night single person $25 per night couple $10 per night children 13 or over Children under 13 free.”
The landlord did not provide evidence confirming that the tenant had rented camp spaces to others. However the post shows a clear intention to do so.
After considering the evidence presented I am satisfied there were more than 3 people living at the premises during the tenancy. This was the case for at least the time that the family of four were living in the converted garage.
I also find the evidence establishes the tenant was subletting the converted garage. The fact that the occupants of the converted garage were cooking in the room in my view shows that they were not considered flatmates, but that they had the exclusive use of that room to live in and were subletting it. The presence of the chemical toilet in the shed along with the boxes of food supports this view, albeit that I accept the shower/bathroom were shared facilities.
I find the actions of the tenant were intentional in renting out the converted garage to others. Ensuring that the converted garage was cleared out of any personal belongings, food etc when the landlord carried out inspections establishes the tenant knew she was not allowed to be renting that room out. The posts for renting out tent spaces clearly show intention to have yet more people on the site.
The tenant has shown a blatant disregard for the terms of the tenancy and for others in the neighbourhood, particularly those in the adjoining units, in having more than the number of persons she was allowed in the premises and in advertising the availability of tent spaces. Cooking in rooms other than kitchens is a fire hazard; [Town] is a rural community with a volunteer fire brigade. The adjoining units are all under the same roof line. In addition the more people in the unit increase the comings and goings to the unit. As this is a back unit this means more vehicle and foot traffic passed the other two units, as well as potentially more noise.
The effect on the landlord includes that the unit has more wear and tear than expected under the terms of the tenancy agreement and more than is reasonable. The landlord has not claimed for all damage and repairs needed at the end of the tenancy. The wear on the shower, including the dent in the base, and that the door to the shower kept coming off during the tenancy is disconcerting given that it was a new shower at the start of the tenancy. The kitchen bench has cuts in it, the mesh over the sliding door was irreparably damaged and the door handle broken.
As I have stated above, exemplary damages are a penalty applied in cases of serious breach. I find this is such a case, and that it is just to award exemplary damages in this instance to an extent that will strongly deter the tenant from any future breach of the same nature. Accordingly I award $750.00 in exemplary damages for exceeding the maximum number allowed to live in the premises under the tenancy agreement, and $1,000.00 for subletting.
As the landlord has been successful in its application reimbursement of the filing fee and suppression of its name and the identifying details of the tenancy are ordered. 6

Tenancy Tribunal case 4613610 — Exemplary damages

Tenancy Tribunal case 4613610 — Exemplary damages

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

If so, is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages?

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

If so, is the landlord entitled to exemplary damages?