What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4743734?

The tribunal order states: Rangimaria Feia Hiku-Vahua must pay Property Connect Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4743734?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Door And Repaint: $931.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $530.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,598.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,610.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $156.52 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4743734?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Smoke alarms, Lost Rent.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4743734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10118167-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4743734?

The tribunal order states: Rangimaria Feia Hiku-Vahua must pay Property Connect Limited As Agent For

How much money was awarded in case 4743734?

Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Lost Rent: $1,600.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Door And Repaint: $931.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $530.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,598.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,610.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $156.52 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4743734?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Smoke alarms, Lost Rent.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4743734?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10118167-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 902, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4743734 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Unit/Flat 902, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4743734 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4743734 — net $9,126.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: (damaged blinds	$530.00	Replace furnishings: (damaged blinds
Replace furnishings: (damaged mattress and 2.5 seater couch	$1,598.00	Replace furnishings: (damaged mattress and 2.5 seater couch
Replace furnishings: (replace damaged carpets	$1,610.00	Replace furnishings: (replace damaged carpets
Fire alarm call outs for smoke alarm defects	$156.52	Fire alarm call outs for smoke alarm defects
Repairs: Replace door and repaint	$931.50	Repairs: Replace door and repaint
4 weeks lost rent	$1,600.00	4 weeks lost rent
Exemplary damages- unlawful purpose	$1,200.00	unlawful purpose
Exemplary damages- interference with smoke alarms	$1,500.00	109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA, I find it to be just to require the tenant to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The tenant was awar…
Exemplary damages-interference with peace and comfort of others in the neighbourhood	$1,500.00	109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA, I find it to be just to require the tenant to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The tenant was awar…
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,126.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,126.46

Claims and awards for application 4743734 — net $9,126.46 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Replace furnishings: (damaged blinds

Amount: $530.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: (damaged blinds

Replace furnishings: (damaged mattress and 2.5 seater couch

Amount: $1,598.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: (damaged mattress and 2.5 seater couch

Replace furnishings: (replace damaged carpets

Amount: $1,610.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: (replace damaged carpets

Fire alarm call outs for smoke alarm defects

Amount: $156.52
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Fire alarm call outs for smoke alarm defects

Repairs: Replace door and repaint

Amount: $931.50
Awarded to: Landlord

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Lost Rent Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Rangimaria Feia Hiku-Vahua must pay Property Connect Limited As Agent For Mo $9,126.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (5476733-015) to Property Connect Limited As Agent For Mo immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Lost rent
The tenancy ended on 6 October 2023. The landlord provided evidence of the extensive damage to the apartment that required 4 weeks to remedy. As a result, the landlord was unable to re-tenant the property for over 4 weeks.

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 all rubbish.
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. Blinds throughout the apartment torn and stained; b. Smoke detectors tampered with and damaged; c. Carpet damaged by dog faeces and urine, tearing from dog scratching and other bad stains; d. Mattress urine soaked and stained; e. 2.5 seater couch urine soaked and stained; f. Internal door between bedroom and hallway had holes in it from a fight between the tenant and her brother.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Did the tenant disturb the neighbours?

Property Connect Limited As Agent For Mo claims the tenant has disturbed 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 means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant had her brother and her brother’s friend residing at the premises, with her consent. The landlord provided video and photographic evidence that the tenant’s brother and his friend stole courier packages from outside other apartments, smoked cannabis and tobacco in the hallways of the apartment block and had a dog going in and out of the premises that made other tenants feel uncomfortable. The landlord also produced evidence of the neighbours complaining constantly about the noise coming from the apartment and the use anti-social language and arguments.
I find the tenant has committed 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.
In accordance with s 109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA, I find it to be just to require the tenant to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The tenant was aware of that she was required to ensure the reasonable peace and comfort of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood and she failed to manage the conduct of her brother and his friend when she allowed them to reside in or visit the apartment; and b. The tenant’s breach of her s40(2)(c) of the RTA responsibilities not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. The tenant’s brother and his friend caused considerable stress to the other tenant’s around the apartment with their anti-social conduct; c. It is in the interests of the landlord to be compensated for the stress, inconvenience caused to him from fielding complaints from the neighbouring tenants and the building manager for the disturbance caused by the tenant’s brother and his friend; and d. It is in the public interest to penalise a tenant that commits such significant unlawful acts in breach of the tenant’s obligations pursuant to the tenancy agreement and s 40(2)(c) of the RTA.

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

Property Connect Limited As Agent For Mo 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.
During the August 2023 property inspection, the landlord became aware that the tenant and/or her guests had covered the smoke alarms with plastic bags so that they could smoke drugs and tobacco in the apartment without setting off the smoke alarms and/or any other fire protection devices. The smoke alarms were damaged as a result and the apartment fire protection systems recorded faults on two separate occasions that the fire systems were defective.
I find the tenant has intentionally committed an unlawful act.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In accordance with s 109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA, I find it to be just to require the tenant to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The tenant allowed her brother and his friend to interfere with the fire protection systems in the apartment so that they could smoke tobacco and illicit drugs in the apartment. A text from the tenant to the landlord in September 2023 confirms she was aware her brother and his friend were smoking drugs in the apartment and the plastic covering the smoke alarms was clearly visible to the tenant and she did not remove the plastic; and b. The tenant’s breach of her responsibilities not to cause or permit any interference with the smoke alarms in the apartment put the entire apartment block at risk and disabled a vital first defence against fire risk; c. It is in the interests of the landlord to be compensated for the stress, inconvenience caused to him from fielding complaints from the building manager for the defect alerts caused by the tenant and her guests; and d. It is in the public interest to penalise a tenant that commits such significant unlawful acts in breach of the tenants’ obligations pursuant to the tenancy agreement and s 40(1)(ca) of the RTA.

Did the tenant use the premises unlawfully?

Property Connect Limited As Agent For Mo claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by smoking cannabis and methamphetamine in the apartment and/or allowing her brother and his guests to do so.
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.
It is unlawful to use premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (ss7 and 12 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). The landlord has established in evidence that cannabis and methamphetamine has been used in the premises during the tenancy. This is because a the landlord smelt and saw cannabis in the apartment when carrying out the August 2023 property inspection, a drug dog alerted the building manager in September 2023 that illicit drugs were in the premises (when the apartment had always previously been clear of drugs when the drug detector dog had tested the apartment the last three times) and methamphetamine testing after the tenancy ended show that the apartment had been contaminated with methamphetamine.
I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act by allowing the use of illicit drugs in the apartment during her tenancy.
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.
I consider an award of $1,500 exemplary damages justified in these circumstances. I make this finding on the following grounds: a. Methamphetamine was found throughout the house. The levels ranged from 2.33μg /100cm2 to 16.1μg /100cm2. The latter level is relatively high. b. The landlord smelt and saw cannabis in the apartment, which is an illicit drug. c. The impact on the landlord cannot be understated. They have suffered extreme costs (in excess of $40,000) to remediate their property. The stress of such remediation has been lengthy and considerable. d. Further, it is clearly in the public interests to discourage the use of illicit drugs in rental properties. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because Property Connect Limited As Agent For Mo has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4743734 — net $9,126.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Replace furnishings: (damaged blinds	$530.00	Replace furnishings: (damaged blinds
Replace furnishings: (damaged mattress and 2.5 seater couch	$1,598.00	Replace furnishings: (damaged mattress and 2.5 seater couch
Replace furnishings: (replace damaged carpets	$1,610.00	Replace furnishings: (replace damaged carpets
Fire alarm call outs for smoke alarm defects	$156.52	Fire alarm call outs for smoke alarm defects
Repairs: Replace door and repaint	$931.50	Repairs: Replace door and repaint
4 weeks lost rent	$1,600.00	4 weeks lost rent
Exemplary damages- unlawful purpose	$1,200.00	unlawful purpose
Exemplary damages- interference with smoke alarms	$1,500.00	109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA, I find it to be just to require the tenant to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The tenant was awar…
Exemplary damages-interference with peace and comfort of others in the neighbourhood	$1,500.00	109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA, I find it to be just to require the tenant to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The tenant was awar…
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,126.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,126.46

Claims and awards for application 4743734 — net $9,126.46 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Replace furnishings: (damaged blinds

Amount: $530.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: (damaged blinds

Replace furnishings: (damaged mattress and 2.5 seater couch

Amount: $1,598.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: (damaged mattress and 2.5 seater couch

Replace furnishings: (replace damaged carpets

Amount: $1,610.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace furnishings: (replace damaged carpets

Fire alarm call outs for smoke alarm defects

Amount: $156.52
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Fire alarm call outs for smoke alarm defects

Repairs: Replace door and repaint

Amount: $931.50
Awarded to: Landlord

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages Filing Fee Lost Rent Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms

Order

Rangimaria Feia Hiku-Vahua must pay Property Connect Limited As Agent For Mo $9,126.46 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,520.00 (5476733-015) to Property Connect Limited As Agent For Mo immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for compensation, exemplary damages refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Lost rent
The tenancy ended on 6 October 2023. The landlord provided evidence of the extensive damage to the apartment that required 4 weeks to remedy. As a result, the landlord was unable to re-tenant the property for over 4 weeks.

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 all rubbish.
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. Blinds throughout the apartment torn and stained; b. Smoke detectors tampered with and damaged; c. Carpet damaged by dog faeces and urine, tearing from dog scratching and other bad stains; d. Mattress urine soaked and stained; e. 2.5 seater couch urine soaked and stained; f. Internal door between bedroom and hallway had holes in it from a fight between the tenant and her brother.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I have considered 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 considered the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Did the tenant disturb the neighbours?

Property Connect Limited As Agent For Mo claims the tenant has disturbed 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 means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant had her brother and her brother’s friend residing at the premises, with her consent. The landlord provided video and photographic evidence that the tenant’s brother and his friend stole courier packages from outside other apartments, smoked cannabis and tobacco in the hallways of the apartment block and had a dog going in and out of the premises that made other tenants feel uncomfortable. The landlord also produced evidence of the neighbours complaining constantly about the noise coming from the apartment and the use anti-social language and arguments.
I find the tenant has committed 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.
In accordance with s 109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA, I find it to be just to require the tenant to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The tenant was aware of that she was required to ensure the reasonable peace and comfort of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood and she failed to manage the conduct of her brother and his friend when she allowed them to reside in or visit the apartment; and b. The tenant’s breach of her s40(2)(c) of the RTA responsibilities not to cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any of the landlord’s other tenants in the use of the premises occupied by those other tenants, or with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of any other person residing in the neighbourhood. The tenant’s brother and his friend caused considerable stress to the other tenant’s around the apartment with their anti-social conduct; c. It is in the interests of the landlord to be compensated for the stress, inconvenience caused to him from fielding complaints from the neighbouring tenants and the building manager for the disturbance caused by the tenant’s brother and his friend; and d. It is in the public interest to penalise a tenant that commits such significant unlawful acts in breach of the tenant’s obligations pursuant to the tenancy agreement and s 40(2)(c) of the RTA.

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

Property Connect Limited As Agent For Mo 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.
During the August 2023 property inspection, the landlord became aware that the tenant and/or her guests had covered the smoke alarms with plastic bags so that they could smoke drugs and tobacco in the apartment without setting off the smoke alarms and/or any other fire protection devices. The smoke alarms were damaged as a result and the apartment fire protection systems recorded faults on two separate occasions that the fire systems were defective.
I find the tenant has intentionally committed an unlawful act.
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. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In accordance with s 109(3)(a) to (d) of the RTA, I find it to be just to require the tenant to pay $1,500.00 in exemplary damages for the following reasons: a. The tenant allowed her brother and his friend to interfere with the fire protection systems in the apartment so that they could smoke tobacco and illicit drugs in the apartment. A text from the tenant to the landlord in September 2023 confirms she was aware her brother and his friend were smoking drugs in the apartment and the plastic covering the smoke alarms was clearly visible to the tenant and she did not remove the plastic; and b. The tenant’s breach of her responsibilities not to cause or permit any interference with the smoke alarms in the apartment put the entire apartment block at risk and disabled a vital first defence against fire risk; c. It is in the interests of the landlord to be compensated for the stress, inconvenience caused to him from fielding complaints from the building manager for the defect alerts caused by the tenant and her guests; and d. It is in the public interest to penalise a tenant that commits such significant unlawful acts in breach of the tenants’ obligations pursuant to the tenancy agreement and s 40(1)(ca) of the RTA.

Did the tenant use the premises unlawfully?

Property Connect Limited As Agent For Mo claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by smoking cannabis and methamphetamine in the apartment and/or allowing her brother and his guests to do so.
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.
It is unlawful to use premises, or allow them to be used, for the purpose of consuming controlled drugs (ss7 and 12 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975). The landlord has established in evidence that cannabis and methamphetamine has been used in the premises during the tenancy. This is because a the landlord smelt and saw cannabis in the apartment when carrying out the August 2023 property inspection, a drug dog alerted the building manager in September 2023 that illicit drugs were in the premises (when the apartment had always previously been clear of drugs when the drug detector dog had tested the apartment the last three times) and methamphetamine testing after the tenancy ended show that the apartment had been contaminated with methamphetamine.
I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act by allowing the use of illicit drugs in the apartment during her tenancy.
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.
I consider an award of $1,500 exemplary damages justified in these circumstances. I make this finding on the following grounds: a. Methamphetamine was found throughout the house. The levels ranged from 2.33μg /100cm2 to 16.1μg /100cm2. The latter level is relatively high. b. The landlord smelt and saw cannabis in the apartment, which is an illicit drug. c. The impact on the landlord cannot be understated. They have suffered extreme costs (in excess of $40,000) to remediate their property. The stress of such remediation has been lengthy and considerable. d. Further, it is clearly in the public interests to discourage the use of illicit drugs in rental properties. Reimbursement of filing fee
Because Property Connect Limited As Agent For Mo has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4743734 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 902, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4743734 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 902, 430 Queen Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant disturb the neighbours?

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

Did the tenant use the premises unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant disturb the neighbours?

Did the tenant interfere with the smoke alarms?

Did the tenant use the premises unlawfully?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions