What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4744295 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Sara McLeod at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4744295?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door: $234.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Bench Top: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Sink Tap: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Toilet: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4744295?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4744295?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9732731-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4744295 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Sara McLeod at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated,

How much money was awarded in case 4744295?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Bathroom Door: $234.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Bench Top: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Sink Tap: $172.50 awarded to landlord; Toilet: $250.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4744295?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4744295?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9732731-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4744295 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4744295 — net $987.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Toilet	$250.00	Repairs: Toilet
Repairs: Sink tap	$172.50	Repairs: Sink tap
Repairs: Kitchen bench top	$310.50	Repairs: Kitchen bench top
Repairs: Bathroom door	$234.00	Repairs: Bathroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$987.44
Bond	$987.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$987.44

Order

The tenancy of Sara McLeod at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm Tuesday 12 December 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay $987.44 from the bond ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The balance of the bond is to remain at the Bond Centre pending agreement of the parties or further order of the Tribunal.
Sara McLeod to pay [The landlord/s] $987.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The applicant landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant.
This tenancy began on 19 January 2023. The tenant rented a home from the landlord in a block of 138 units in the city. She lives on the 10 th floor.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission, compensation for damage to the premises and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is kicking the next door apartment door and causing a nuisance at 2.32am, forcing entry into a neighbouring apartment, harassing and using obscene language at other tenants in the lift.
The property manager gave evidence and produced letters from four different neighbours within the apartment complex in support of the claims of antisocial behaviour.
The landlord produced copies of notices given to the tenant on 14 September 2023, 21 September 2023 and 13 November 2023. Following these notices a further incident occurred on 5 December 2023.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the landlord as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.

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) The toilet was destroyed. (b) The bathroom sliding door and rail was ripped out. (c) The kitchen sink tap was ripped out. (d) The kitchen bench was badly dented.
The landlord has provided before and after photographs of the damage. The landlord advised that when questioned about the damage the tenant replied that she was angry.
Having considered the evidence provided I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear and was intentionally caused.
The amounts ordered are proved. The landlord has repaired the toilet and sink tap and invoices have been provided. A quote has been provided for the repair of the door and the kitchen bench. The Tribunal takes a conservative approach when the work has not yet been done and the amounts ordered are discounted by ten percent. Filing fee/Suppression
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee and suppress the landlord details in the order as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4744295 — net $987.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Toilet	$250.00	Repairs: Toilet
Repairs: Sink tap	$172.50	Repairs: Sink tap
Repairs: Kitchen bench top	$310.50	Repairs: Kitchen bench top
Repairs: Bathroom door	$234.00	Repairs: Bathroom door
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$987.44
Bond	$987.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$987.44

Order

The tenancy of Sara McLeod at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm Tuesday 12 December 2023.
The Bond Centre is to pay $987.44 from the bond ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The balance of the bond is to remain at the Bond Centre pending agreement of the parties or further order of the Tribunal.
Sara McLeod to pay [The landlord/s] $987.44 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The applicant landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenant.
This tenancy began on 19 January 2023. The tenant rented a home from the landlord in a block of 138 units in the city. She lives on the 10 th floor.
The landlord has applied to the Tribunal for an order terminating the periodic tenancy on the grounds of anti-social behaviour from the tenant or someone on the premises with the tenant’s permission, compensation for damage to the premises and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord states that the anti-social behaviour is kicking the next door apartment door and causing a nuisance at 2.32am, forcing entry into a neighbouring apartment, harassing and using obscene language at other tenants in the lift.
The property manager gave evidence and produced letters from four different neighbours within the apartment complex in support of the claims of antisocial behaviour.
The landlord produced copies of notices given to the tenant on 14 September 2023, 21 September 2023 and 13 November 2023. Following these notices a further incident occurred on 5 December 2023.
Subject to certain considerations, the Tribunal must make an order terminating the tenancy if it is satisfied: a. on 3 separate occasions within a 90-day period the tenant, or a person in the premises with the tenant’s permission, engaged in anti-social behaviour in connection with the tenancy; and b. on each occasion the landlord gave the tenant written notice— i. describing clearly which specific behaviour was considered to be anti-social and (if known to the landlord) who engaged in it; and ii. advising the tenant of the date, approximate time, and location of the behaviour; and iii. stating how many other notices (if any) the landlord has given the tenant under this paragraph in connection with the same tenancy and the same 90-day period; and iv. advising the tenant of the tenant’s right to make an application to the Tribunal challenging the notice and; c. the landlord’s application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days after the landlord gave the third notice.
The Act confirms that antisocial behaviour includes harassment or any act (whether intentional or not) that reasonably causes alarm, distress or nuisance that is more than minor.
I have taken into account the evidence presented by the landlord as set out above.
I have determined that the landlord has established that anti-social behaviour has occurred on the premises by the tenant or a person on the tenancy with the tenant’s permission. The landlord has served notices on the tenant as required in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and the application to the Tribunal was made within 28 days of the date of the third notice.
I consider it would not be unfair to terminate the tenancy taking into account the circumstances in which the behaviour arose and the notices were given. I cannot see that the landlord has acted in any retaliatory way in bringing this application.
I cannot consider the impact on the tenant, in making an order for termination of the tenancy.

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) The toilet was destroyed. (b) The bathroom sliding door and rail was ripped out. (c) The kitchen sink tap was ripped out. (d) The kitchen bench was badly dented.
The landlord has provided before and after photographs of the damage. The landlord advised that when questioned about the damage the tenant replied that she was angry.
Having considered the evidence provided I find that the damage is more than fair wear and tear and was intentionally caused.
The amounts ordered are proved. The landlord has repaired the toilet and sink tap and invoices have been provided. A quote has been provided for the repair of the door and the kitchen bench. The Tribunal takes a conservative approach when the work has not yet been done and the amounts ordered are discounted by ten percent. Filing fee/Suppression
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee and suppress the landlord details in the order as applied for. See sections 102(4) and 95A(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4744295 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4744295 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions