What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4719678 about?

The tribunal order states: Schennal Marie Hermon must pay [The landlord/s] $5,740.93 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4719678?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $23.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $610.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $735.07 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Remote For Air Conditioner: $42.50 awarded to landlord; 3 Doors: $929.19 awarded to landlord; Bathroom: $515.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Downstairs Bedroom Wall: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Floor: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $462.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $192.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4719678?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4719678?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10244635-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4719678 about?

The tribunal order states: Schennal Marie Hermon must pay [The landlord/s] $5,740.93 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4719678?

Cleaning: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $23.99 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $610.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $735.07 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $320.00 awarded to landlord; Remote For Air Conditioner: $42.50 awarded to landlord; 3 Doors: $929.19 awarded to landlord; Bathroom: $515.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Downstairs Bedroom Wall: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Floor: $920.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $462.50 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $192.68 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4719678?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4719678?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10244635-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

108 Rayner Road, Huntly, Huntly 3700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4719678 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4719678 — net $6,621.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates from 5.8.23 to 27.9.23	$192.68	Water rates from 5.8.23 to 27.9.23
Window and slider door repairs	$610.00	Window and slider door repairs
Repairs: 3 Doors	$929.19	Repairs: 3 Doors
Repairs: Bathroom	$515.00	Repairs: Bathroom
Carpet Cleaning: Lounge/bedroom downstairs	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning: Lounge/bedroom downstairs
Repairs: Carpet replacement 2 bedrooms	$950.00	Repairs: Carpet replacement 2 bedrooms
Cleaning: items purchased cleaning	$23.99	Cleaning: items purchased cleaning
Repairs: Kitchen floor	$920.00	Repairs: Kitchen floor
Repairs: Downstairs bedroom wall	$300.00	Repairs: Downstairs bedroom wall
Rubbish removal	$462.50	Rubbish removal
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$735.07	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Remote for air conditioner	$42.50	Remote for air conditioner
Exemplary damages	$400.00	Exemplary damages
Curtain replacements	$320.00	Curtain replacements
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,621.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,621.37

Order

Schennal Marie Hermon must pay [The landlord/s] $5,740.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear, and the hearing continued in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 27 September 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Part water rates were awarded at a previous hearing (application4478661) Water rates notices are issued every six months, and water rates owing from 5 August 2023 until 27 September 2023 are awarded.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. A small amount of cleaning items are awarded and part of the rubbish removal quote. The rubbish amount ordered is nominal because the landlord has not completed the rubbish removal and has only provided a quote. The landlord has not established a loss and nominal sum is awarded to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations.
The carpet in the lounge and downstairs room required professional cleaning for stain removal, again this was based on a quote and a nominal award is made.
The remote control for the air conditioning unit was missing. The cost to replace is awarded.
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 landlord had insurance with AMI and their policy did not cover deliberate damages by tenants. The excess for each claim was $550.00.The landlord could claim the damage to one of the bedrooms carpets under her insurance and the excess is awarded for this.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) A window and sliding door were broken, a photo and an invoice for the glass replacement were provided. b) 3 doors were damaged, two had white filler used in an attempt to repair them but the doors were wooded veneer and were not repaired properly. There was not enough evidence provided to support the claims for damages to other doors. c) The bathroom had evidence of a leak. The landlord said this was from the toilet and shower mixer. Only a photo of the toilet was provided and the damage to the floor area. The repairs to the shower were not established and are not awarded. d) The carpet in two bedrooms were stained beyond repair. The landlord provided a quote, and a nominal award is made. e) The kitchen floor was damaged by leaks and the landlord said it was where the fridge was. f)There was a large hole in the downstairs bedroom cupboard wall where utensils for drug use were stored. g) The electrical fittings and wiring at the premises only partly work and was damaged. h) The curtains over a large ranch slider were soiled and marked.
I find that the door, carpets and walls and glass damages are intentional. The landlord said that there was a dog at the premises, which was not allowed, and one room had a door that was damaged by scratches and had very soiled carpet.
The water damages I find are careless as the tenant did not report the leaks to the landlord which made the situation worse. The tenant did not appear at the Tribunal to explain.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord relied on a written pre inspection report to establish the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
In many of the claims the landlord had not made the repairs but relied on quotes to repair them. She said that she did not have enough money to complete the repairs and was waiting on the Tribunal decision before she could attend to them all. She said this contributed to the length of time it has taken to get the premises up to renting standards again. She suggested a claim for loss of rent, but the details were not provided.
Being a landlord is a business and time and money needs to be set aside for end of tenancy maintenance. A landlord cannot rely on Tribunal orders to provide funds for repairs.
Where the amounts ordered are nominal it is because the landlord has not completed any of the repairs. I do not find that the landlord has established a loss and award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and have caused damage for which they are liable, but I am not persuaded the precise loss has been quantified.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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 and their likely useful lifespan. Exemplary damages
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by storing items for drug use.
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.
Police reports of an incident record that in the hole in the wall in the downstairs room cupboard utensils used for cannabis, a class C drug were found. The Police found that there was not enough evidence has to whom the owner was, and for a charge of possession the items have to be in the persons possession.
It is illegal to have a pipe, bong or other “utensil” for using or manufacturing drugs.
Section 13 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, prohibiting the possession of drug utensil states that. (1)Every person commits an offence against this Act who—(a)has in that person’s possession any pipe or other utensil (not being a needle or syringe) for the purpose of the commission of an offence against this Act.
The standard of proof in matters before the Tenancy Tribunal is the balance of probabilities, in other words the party proving the claim must establish with evidence that the is claim is ''more probable than not'' or ''more likely than not''.
I find that it was more likely than not that the tenant used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose and this is 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Storing these items is an intentional act and possessing them is illegal. It is important that tenants do not endanger others at the premises with their behaviour and break the law. This is also in the public interest. This behaviour can affect the landlord’s insurance and ability to rent the premises.
I find it just to award $400.00 in exemplary damages.
The landlord sought compensation by way of petrol, time liaising with SPCA and field rental for looking after the tenant’s abandoned goat that she believed was their pet. Not enough evidence was provided about the existence of the goat, established petrol costs or time. This claim is dismissed.
The claim for a dog being inside the premises is dismissed because there was not enough evidence provided supporting this.
The miscellaneous damages for time effort and stress were claimed but were unsupported and unquantified. They are dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Name suppression is granted for the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4719678 — net $6,621.37 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates from 5.8.23 to 27.9.23	$192.68	Water rates from 5.8.23 to 27.9.23
Window and slider door repairs	$610.00	Window and slider door repairs
Repairs: 3 Doors	$929.19	Repairs: 3 Doors
Repairs: Bathroom	$515.00	Repairs: Bathroom
Carpet Cleaning: Lounge/bedroom downstairs	$200.00	Carpet Cleaning: Lounge/bedroom downstairs
Repairs: Carpet replacement 2 bedrooms	$950.00	Repairs: Carpet replacement 2 bedrooms
Cleaning: items purchased cleaning	$23.99	Cleaning: items purchased cleaning
Repairs: Kitchen floor	$920.00	Repairs: Kitchen floor
Repairs: Downstairs bedroom wall	$300.00	Repairs: Downstairs bedroom wall
Rubbish removal	$462.50	Rubbish removal
Electrical fittings replacement/repair	$735.07	Electrical fittings replacement/repair
Remote for air conditioner	$42.50	Remote for air conditioner
Exemplary damages	$400.00	Exemplary damages
Curtain replacements	$320.00	Curtain replacements
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,621.37
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,621.37

Order

Schennal Marie Hermon must pay [The landlord/s] $5,740.93 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear, and the hearing continued in their absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 27 September 2023. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Part water rates were awarded at a previous hearing (application4478661) Water rates notices are issued every six months, and water rates owing from 5 August 2023 until 27 September 2023 are awarded.

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. A small amount of cleaning items are awarded and part of the rubbish removal quote. The rubbish amount ordered is nominal because the landlord has not completed the rubbish removal and has only provided a quote. The landlord has not established a loss and nominal sum is awarded to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations.
The carpet in the lounge and downstairs room required professional cleaning for stain removal, again this was based on a quote and a nominal award is made.
The remote control for the air conditioning unit was missing. The cost to replace is awarded.
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 landlord had insurance with AMI and their policy did not cover deliberate damages by tenants. The excess for each claim was $550.00.The landlord could claim the damage to one of the bedrooms carpets under her insurance and the excess is awarded for this.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a) A window and sliding door were broken, a photo and an invoice for the glass replacement were provided. b) 3 doors were damaged, two had white filler used in an attempt to repair them but the doors were wooded veneer and were not repaired properly. There was not enough evidence provided to support the claims for damages to other doors. c) The bathroom had evidence of a leak. The landlord said this was from the toilet and shower mixer. Only a photo of the toilet was provided and the damage to the floor area. The repairs to the shower were not established and are not awarded. d) The carpet in two bedrooms were stained beyond repair. The landlord provided a quote, and a nominal award is made. e) The kitchen floor was damaged by leaks and the landlord said it was where the fridge was. f)There was a large hole in the downstairs bedroom cupboard wall where utensils for drug use were stored. g) The electrical fittings and wiring at the premises only partly work and was damaged. h) The curtains over a large ranch slider were soiled and marked.
I find that the door, carpets and walls and glass damages are intentional. The landlord said that there was a dog at the premises, which was not allowed, and one room had a door that was damaged by scratches and had very soiled carpet.
The water damages I find are careless as the tenant did not report the leaks to the landlord which made the situation worse. The tenant did not appear at the Tribunal to explain.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord relied on a written pre inspection report to establish the condition of the premises at the start of the tenancy.
In many of the claims the landlord had not made the repairs but relied on quotes to repair them. She said that she did not have enough money to complete the repairs and was waiting on the Tribunal decision before she could attend to them all. She said this contributed to the length of time it has taken to get the premises up to renting standards again. She suggested a claim for loss of rent, but the details were not provided.
Being a landlord is a business and time and money needs to be set aside for end of tenancy maintenance. A landlord cannot rely on Tribunal orders to provide funds for repairs.
Where the amounts ordered are nominal it is because the landlord has not completed any of the repairs. I do not find that the landlord has established a loss and award a nominal sum to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and have caused damage for which they are liable, but I am not persuaded the precise loss has been quantified.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation. 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 and their likely useful lifespan. Exemplary damages
[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by storing items for drug use.
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.
Police reports of an incident record that in the hole in the wall in the downstairs room cupboard utensils used for cannabis, a class C drug were found. The Police found that there was not enough evidence has to whom the owner was, and for a charge of possession the items have to be in the persons possession.
It is illegal to have a pipe, bong or other “utensil” for using or manufacturing drugs.
Section 13 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, prohibiting the possession of drug utensil states that. (1)Every person commits an offence against this Act who—(a)has in that person’s possession any pipe or other utensil (not being a needle or syringe) for the purpose of the commission of an offence against this Act.
The standard of proof in matters before the Tenancy Tribunal is the balance of probabilities, in other words the party proving the claim must establish with evidence that the is claim is ''more probable than not'' or ''more likely than not''.
I find that it was more likely than not that the tenant used or permitted the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose and this is 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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Storing these items is an intentional act and possessing them is illegal. It is important that tenants do not endanger others at the premises with their behaviour and break the law. This is also in the public interest. This behaviour can affect the landlord’s insurance and ability to rent the premises.
I find it just to award $400.00 in exemplary damages.
The landlord sought compensation by way of petrol, time liaising with SPCA and field rental for looking after the tenant’s abandoned goat that she believed was their pet. Not enough evidence was provided about the existence of the goat, established petrol costs or time. This claim is dismissed.
The claim for a dog being inside the premises is dismissed because there was not enough evidence provided supporting this.
The miscellaneous damages for time effort and stress were claimed but were unsupported and unquantified. They are dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. Name suppression is granted for the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4719678 — Property damage at 108 Rayner Road, Huntly, Huntly 3700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4719678 — Property damage at 108 Rayner Road, Huntly, Huntly 3700

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for 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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for 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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions