What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774857?

The tribunal order states: Pham Ngoc Hai must pay Dung Thi Nishida $268.69 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4774857?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Electrical Work: $1,619.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,250.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $178.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774857?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774857?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10222436-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774857?

The tribunal order states: Pham Ngoc Hai must pay Dung Thi Nishida $268.69 immediately, calculated as

How much money was awarded in case 4774857?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Electrical Work: $1,619.20 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,250.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $178.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774857?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774857?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10222436-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

49 Lauderdale Road, Birkdale, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774857 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774857 — net $268.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Electrical work	$1,619.20	Repairs: Electrical work
Replace furnishings: Flooring replacement	$1,250.45	Replace furnishings: Flooring replacement
Replace furnishings: Flooring replacement	$178.60	Replace furnishings: Flooring replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$268.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$268.69

The landlord attended the hearing by remote teleconference. There was no attendance by the tenant. The telephone number provided with the application had been disconnected.

This matter was set down for a case management conference to address the issue of service. The landlord explained the background to this application.

The tenancy began on 18 November 2022. In November 2023 police executed a search warrant at the tenancy address. The tenant had fled the address and has not been seen since. The landlord has made exhaustive attempts to locate the tenant, including asking the police for his whereabouts. The police have advised her that they are also unable to locate the tenant. A copy of the search warrant, sworn on 7 November 2023, was provided in support of the landlord’s claim which I have sighted.

I am satisfied that the landlord has taken all reasonable steps to locate the tenant. There is noting further that she can do to bring this application to his attention. The tenant has disappeared and may have even departed New Zealand.

I dispense with the requirement for service and proceed as if the notice had been served on the tenant in accordance with the Act.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

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 provided photographic evidence of a room in the house confirming the premises were used for an unlawful purpose. The landlord stated that the tenant damaged the flooring and undertook illegal electrical wiring. The landlord had to replace the flooring. She also had to have an electrician attend and rewire the damage done by the tenant. Having sighted the evidence filed in support of these damage claims I am satisfied that the damage is intentional.

I find that the tenant is responsible for this damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because Dung Thi Nishida has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4774857 — net $268.69 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Electrical work	$1,619.20	Repairs: Electrical work
Replace furnishings: Flooring replacement	$1,250.45	Replace furnishings: Flooring replacement
Replace furnishings: Flooring replacement	$178.60	Replace furnishings: Flooring replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$268.69
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$268.69

Order

Pham Ngoc Hai must pay Dung Thi Nishida $268.69 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,800.00 (3094318-012) to Dung Thi Nishida immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by remote teleconference. There was no attendance by the tenant. The telephone number provided with the application had been disconnected.
This matter was set down for a case management conference to address the issue of service. The landlord explained the background to this application.
The tenancy began on 18 November 2022. In November 2023 police executed a search warrant at the tenancy address. The tenant had fled the address and has not been seen since. The landlord has made exhaustive attempts to locate the tenant, including asking the police for his whereabouts. The police have advised her that they are also unable to locate the tenant. A copy of the search warrant, sworn on 7 November 2023, was provided in support of the landlord’s claim which I have sighted.
I am satisfied that the landlord has taken all reasonable steps to locate the tenant. There is noting further that she can do to bring this application to his attention. The tenant has disappeared and may have even departed New Zealand.
I dispense with the requirement for service and proceed as if the notice had been served on the tenant in accordance with the Act.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end 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 careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 provided photographic evidence of a room in the house confirming the premises were used for an unlawful purpose. The landlord stated that the tenant damaged the flooring and undertook illegal electrical wiring. The landlord had to replace the flooring. She also had to have an electrician attend and rewire the damage done by the tenant. Having sighted the evidence filed in support of these damage claims I am satisfied that the damage is intentional.
I find that the tenant is responsible for this damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because Dung Thi Nishida has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774857 — Property damage at 49 Lauderdale Road, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774857 — Property damage at 49 Lauderdale Road, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions