What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4664979?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4664979?

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 4664979?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4664979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9467312-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4664979?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4664979?

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 4664979?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4664979?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9467312-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Lion Place, Papamoa, Papamoa 3118 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4664979 — Property damage

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Billie Te Tau must pay Boutique Rentals Bop Limited $10,421.85 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,640.00 (6380758-005) to Boutique Rentals Bop Limited immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The tenancy ended on 7 July 2023. The landlord provided rent records and water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

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. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove a significant amount of rubbish. The premises required extensive cleaning to bring it up to a reasonable standard.
The tenant did not return the keys or garage remotes.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: plugs from bathrooms and insinkerator stopper. The landlord also had to replace light bulbs.
The amounts ordered are proved. I have reduced the amount claimed for cleaning to $25.00 per hour for the work done by the owners for a total amount of $1550.00 for 31 hours (2 people). I find the time spent was reasonable given the filthy state the premises was left in.

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 landlord withdrew claims relating to the benchtop and floorboards totalling $13,443.85.
I find that the following intentional and extensive damage was caused during the tenancy: multiple holes in walls throughout the premises, smashed doors, carpet damaged by extensive staining and faeces throughout, garage carpet damaged by extensive oil stains, broken insinkerator, dishwasher door damaged, ceilings damaged, blinds broken, broken shower trap, broken window in lounge; and multiple electrical repairs due to damaged heat pump and rangehood, oven floor, light fitting in bedroom, and extractor fan in bathroom.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved. The landlord claimed $549.00 for a new dishwasher. However, I have reduced this by 50% to reflect likely repair costs as I am not persuaded a new machine was required when the door could have been fixed/replaced.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation in relation to the paintwork and carpets. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations, and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy (3 years) and their likely useful lifespan.
The landlord made a successful insurance claim of $13,800.00 for the damages and this amount has been deducted off the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
The also landlord claimed 4 weeks lost rent due to the extensive nature of the damage and time taken for repairs. While a realistic landlord’s business plan should include an allowance for some loss of rent between tenancies, I acknowledge the extent of the damage and the time it took to remedy which inevitably led to a delay in re-letting. I award 3 weeks lost rent for a total of $2,250.00 as fair, reasonable and proportionate compensation. Exemplary damages
Boutique Rentals Bop Limited claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or permitting the use of methamphetamine at the premises.
A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided a composite test for methamphetamine dated 10 July 2023 which records a level of 37.40ug/100cm for the 10 areas tested.
However, the landlord faces an evidential difficulty in proving this part of the claim. The ‘ingoing’ test for methamphetamine was done some 4 months before this tenancy started. In these circumstances, I am unable to conclude that the tenant used the premises for an unlawful purpose during this tenancy.
This part of the claim is dismissed.
As the landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim, the tenant must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4664979 — Property damage at 6 Lion Place, Papamoa, Papamoa 3118

Tenancy Tribunal case 4664979 — Property damage at 6 Lion Place, Papamoa, Papamoa 3118

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?

Property management

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?

Property management