What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4720371 about?

The tribunal order states: Patelesio Makelani Manuhaapai, Petela Fakaola Manuhaapai, Salote

How much money was awarded in case 4720371?

Demolition Costs: $54,395.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Applicances: $4,063.62 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $1,162.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,346.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720371?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10586591-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4720371 about?

The tribunal order states: Patelesio Makelani Manuhaapai, Petela Fakaola Manuhaapai, Salote

How much money was awarded in case 4720371?

Demolition Costs: $54,395.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Applicances: $4,063.62 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Curtains: $1,162.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,346.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4720371?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4720371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10586591-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4720371 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4720371 — net $58,487.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$2,346.00	Rubbish removal
Demolition costs	$54,395.00	Demolition costs
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$1,162.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Replace furnishings: Applicances	$4,063.62	Replace furnishings: Applicances
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$58,487.06
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$58,487.06

Order

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $58,487.06 immediately, calculated as shown in the 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 attended the hearing on 18 June 2024. The landlord was allowed further time following the hearing to provide additional information about the damage to the premises and the insurance position.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 5 March 2022 to 2 September 2022. The tenancy continued as a periodic tenancy.
The premises were provided with furnishings such as curtains, a washing machine, oven and rangehood, and a heat pump.
The tenancy agreement prohibited smoking in the premises. The weekly rent was $950.00 (originally $875.00) and a bond of $3,500.00 was paid.
The property was rendered uninhabitable by a fire at about 8am on 14 August 2023. On 15 August 2023 the tenants gave notice to terminate the tenancy with immediate effect and requested refund of the bond.
The Police case summary report noted an offence of “Wilfully Damage Prop by Explos’/Endang Life”. It also recorded (in part): [The occupant] was present at home looking for cigarettes in the living room and during the process a fire has started which spread across the address.
The Fire Service report noted: Determined after interviews by fire investigators and police, with occupants. Occupant used lighter to illuminate under sofa whilst looking for cigarettes. This caused ignition of sofas and subsequently room and house. An attempt was made to put out the fire in its early stages by a [text redacted] using a blanket though this was unsuccessful.
The fire caused substantial damage throughout the interior. The premises need to be demolished and rebuilt. The cost of rebuild, estimated at $700,000.00 is several hundred thousand dollars higher than the sum insured. Insurers have paid the sum insured but are not liable for demolition and debris removal costs.
The landlord claims demolition costs of $47,300.00 plus GST ($54,395.00) rubbish removal costs of $2,346.00, the cost of replacement curtains of $1,162.00 and other furnishings totalling $4,063.62. There is also a claim for general damages for mental distress. Relevant law
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 (sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or 4 weeks' rent.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
In the criminal law, intention or recklessness is sufficient mens rea for most offences. Arson is committed if, inter alia, a person intentionally or recklessly damages by fire or by means of any explosive any property if he or she knows or ought to know that danger to life is likely to result. Intentional damage is committed if, inter alia, a person intentionally or recklessly destroys or damages any property if he or she knows or ought to know that danger to life is likely to result (sections 267 and 269 of the Crimes Act 1961). Analysis
The property was very badly damaged by fire, although the structure survived. The damage is plainly more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord had insurance, but it does not cover the entire loss. If the tenant’s liability is limited to the insurance excess or 4 weeks’ rent, the landlord will recover a maximum of $3,800.00 and be left with considerable uninsured losses.
The tenants have the onus of proving that the damage was not caused intentionally or by a careless act or omission.
The tenants did not attend the hearing and have not proved that the damage was not intentional. Clearly, the lighter had to be held close to the furniture to set it on fire, and it would have taken some time to catch alight and spread. I consider it is open to the Tribunal to find that the tenant knew a fire was virtually certain to result, and therefore that the damage was caused intentionally. I find that the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
I have also considered criminal liability for the damage as a ground for recovery. The landlord has the onus of proving that the damage was the result of an act or omission by the tenant (or by a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible) which occurred on or about the premises and constitutes an imprisonable offence.
A tenancy is an interest in land, so it is unlikely the tenant could be prosecuted for arson under section 267(1)(b) or 267(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 (R v Wilson [2008] NZCA 505). However, a prosecution could be brought if the tenant knew, or ought to know, that danger to life was likely to ensue (section 267(1)(a)). This is probably the offence mentioned in the Police report.
While it may be highly arguable that the damage was caused by a criminal act of the tenants, there is no evidence before the Tribunal suggesting that any of the tenants have been charged. I prefer to express no concluded view about whether the damage was caused in the commission of a crime.
I award the demolition, rubbish removal, and furnishings replacement costs claimed. These costs were caused by the fire started by the tenants and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The rubbish removal cost includes furniture and other household items belonging to the tenants. General damages
As to the claim for general damages, under the Act a tenant does not have an obligation not to harass or interfere with the peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord (as opposed to other tenants of the landlord, or people residing in the neighbourhood, to whom a duty is owed). Any remedies a landlord may have lie outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Even if a relevant breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act could be identified, there is a general principle that damages for injury to feelings cannot be awarded for breach of contract (Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488).
This principle does not apply in some contexts, including where the object of the contract is the provision of peace of mind or enjoyment or the prevention of distress. The Tribunal has typically construed tenancy agreements as contracts for business purposes so far as landlords are concerned. I do not consider that the object of a residential tenancy agreement, from a landlord’s perspective, is to provide enjoyment or peace of mind. It is a commercial bargain, and landlords are effectively running a business. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord’s application has been successful. I award the filing fee.
I accept that the application has been substantially successful. I grant suppression as requested.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4720371 — net $58,487.06 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rubbish removal	$2,346.00	Rubbish removal
Demolition costs	$54,395.00	Demolition costs
Replace furnishings: Curtains	$1,162.00	Replace furnishings: Curtains
Replace furnishings: Applicances	$4,063.62	Replace furnishings: Applicances
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$58,487.06
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$58,487.06

Order

[The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $58,487.06 immediately, calculated as shown in the 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 attended the hearing on 18 June 2024. The landlord was allowed further time following the hearing to provide additional information about the damage to the premises and the insurance position.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Background
The parties signed a residential tenancy agreement for a fixed term from 5 March 2022 to 2 September 2022. The tenancy continued as a periodic tenancy.
The premises were provided with furnishings such as curtains, a washing machine, oven and rangehood, and a heat pump.
The tenancy agreement prohibited smoking in the premises. The weekly rent was $950.00 (originally $875.00) and a bond of $3,500.00 was paid.
The property was rendered uninhabitable by a fire at about 8am on 14 August 2023. On 15 August 2023 the tenants gave notice to terminate the tenancy with immediate effect and requested refund of the bond.
The Police case summary report noted an offence of “Wilfully Damage Prop by Explos’/Endang Life”. It also recorded (in part): [The occupant] was present at home looking for cigarettes in the living room and during the process a fire has started which spread across the address.
The Fire Service report noted: Determined after interviews by fire investigators and police, with occupants. Occupant used lighter to illuminate under sofa whilst looking for cigarettes. This caused ignition of sofas and subsequently room and house. An attempt was made to put out the fire in its early stages by a [text redacted] using a blanket though this was unsuccessful.
The fire caused substantial damage throughout the interior. The premises need to be demolished and rebuilt. The cost of rebuild, estimated at $700,000.00 is several hundred thousand dollars higher than the sum insured. Insurers have paid the sum insured but are not liable for demolition and debris removal costs.
The landlord claims demolition costs of $47,300.00 plus GST ($54,395.00) rubbish removal costs of $2,346.00, the cost of replacement curtains of $1,162.00 and other furnishings totalling $4,063.62. There is also a claim for general damages for mental distress. Relevant law
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 (sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act)).
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or 4 weeks' rent.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to 4 weeks' rent. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty (Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541).
In the criminal law, intention or recklessness is sufficient mens rea for most offences. Arson is committed if, inter alia, a person intentionally or recklessly damages by fire or by means of any explosive any property if he or she knows or ought to know that danger to life is likely to result. Intentional damage is committed if, inter alia, a person intentionally or recklessly destroys or damages any property if he or she knows or ought to know that danger to life is likely to result (sections 267 and 269 of the Crimes Act 1961). Analysis
The property was very badly damaged by fire, although the structure survived. The damage is plainly more than fair wear and tear.
The landlord had insurance, but it does not cover the entire loss. If the tenant’s liability is limited to the insurance excess or 4 weeks’ rent, the landlord will recover a maximum of $3,800.00 and be left with considerable uninsured losses.
The tenants have the onus of proving that the damage was not caused intentionally or by a careless act or omission.
The tenants did not attend the hearing and have not proved that the damage was not intentional. Clearly, the lighter had to be held close to the furniture to set it on fire, and it would have taken some time to catch alight and spread. I consider it is open to the Tribunal to find that the tenant knew a fire was virtually certain to result, and therefore that the damage was caused intentionally. I find that the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
I have also considered criminal liability for the damage as a ground for recovery. The landlord has the onus of proving that the damage was the result of an act or omission by the tenant (or by a person for whose actions the tenant is responsible) which occurred on or about the premises and constitutes an imprisonable offence.
A tenancy is an interest in land, so it is unlikely the tenant could be prosecuted for arson under section 267(1)(b) or 267(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 (R v Wilson [2008] NZCA 505). However, a prosecution could be brought if the tenant knew, or ought to know, that danger to life was likely to ensue (section 267(1)(a)). This is probably the offence mentioned in the Police report.
While it may be highly arguable that the damage was caused by a criminal act of the tenants, there is no evidence before the Tribunal suggesting that any of the tenants have been charged. I prefer to express no concluded view about whether the damage was caused in the commission of a crime.
I award the demolition, rubbish removal, and furnishings replacement costs claimed. These costs were caused by the fire started by the tenants and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage. The rubbish removal cost includes furniture and other household items belonging to the tenants. General damages
As to the claim for general damages, under the Act a tenant does not have an obligation not to harass or interfere with the peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord (as opposed to other tenants of the landlord, or people residing in the neighbourhood, to whom a duty is owed). Any remedies a landlord may have lie outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Even if a relevant breach of the tenancy agreement or the Act could be identified, there is a general principle that damages for injury to feelings cannot be awarded for breach of contract (Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488).
This principle does not apply in some contexts, including where the object of the contract is the provision of peace of mind or enjoyment or the prevention of distress. The Tribunal has typically construed tenancy agreements as contracts for business purposes so far as landlords are concerned. I do not consider that the object of a residential tenancy agreement, from a landlord’s perspective, is to provide enjoyment or peace of mind. It is a commercial bargain, and landlords are effectively running a business. Filing fee and name suppression
The landlord’s application has been successful. I award the filing fee.
I accept that the application has been substantially successful. I grant suppression as requested.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720371 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4720371 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions