What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4780183 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4780183?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $20,969.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,507.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Fridge: $760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4780183?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4780183?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11090768-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4780183 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4780183?

Cleaning: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $20,969.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $3,507.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Furnishings: Fridge: $760.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4780183?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4780183?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11090768-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4780183 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4780183 — net $27,179.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 31/01/2024	$20,969.00	Rent arrears (to 31/01/2024
Repairs: Damage to premises	$3,507.00	Repairs: Damage to premises
Replace furnishings: Fridge	$760.00	Replace furnishings: Fridge
Clean house and remove rubbish	$402.50	Clean house and remove rubbish
Exemplary damages: Failure to quit premises	$1,500.00	Failure to quit premises
Filing fee reimbursement: (application againts Tina Gill	$20.44	(application againts Tina Gill
Filing fee reimbursement: (application against Grant Hart	$20.44	(application against Grant Hart
Net award	$27,179.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27,179.38

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not.

I am satisfied that the tenants had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.

The landlord informed me that the tenants had been convicted of breaking and entering unit one, damage to the tyres of the owner’s car and theft of her purse which contained $1,000.00 cash and are currently incarcerated for these crimes. In addition, the tenants unlawfully rented out the other three rooms in Unit two, without any authority or permission from the landlord, and retained the rent obtained unlawfully. The landlord sought compensation for these losses from the Tribunal, but these claims sit outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Therefore, these claims are dismissed.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenants have made across application for compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond, rent overpayment refund and reimbursement of the application fee. The tenants have not appeared at the hearing today to present their claims. Their claims are dismissed.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 31 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

The rent summaries show that Tina Gill owes $10,961.00 in rent arrears and Grant Hart owes $10,008.00 in rent arrears for [address suppressed].

The tenants are a couple that rented the room together but occupied the entire Unit 2. They had separate rental agreements and were each charged $357.00 rent per week.

The tenants’ cross application was made as a joint application. I have treated the landlord’s two applications as one application against both tenants as all claims are against both jointly, except the separate rent arrears claims, which I have combined.

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 tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The tenants did not return the keys.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a refrigerator. The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries.

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 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 following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Corridor wall light was damaged and needed rewiring and replacing; b. The kitchen cabinet door needed replacing; c. The bathroom tap was damaged and needed repair; d. 4 holes in the walls needed plastering, sanding and painting; e. Damaged locks in attic and front door needed replacing; f. Windows and doors were damaged and needed repair; g. Toilet seat needed fastening as it was loose; h. The walls needed repainting and graffiti removed; i. Glass in the windows that were broken needed replacing; j. Wiring in 4 rooms were damaged and needed repair; and k. Curtains were damaged in all four rooms and needed replacing.

The landlords have proven the damage was deliberate damage caused by the tenants during the tenancy and in retribution for being evicted.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have 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. Failure to quit the premises

[The landlord] claims the tenants did not vacate the premises on 10 January 2024, the date the tenancy ended.

A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 40(3A)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The tenants were given notice on 30 December 2023 ending the tenancy on 10 January 2024. The landlord says the tenants refused to vacate the premises and when the landlord called the Police, the Police trespassed them and made them leave the premises. The landlord says the tenants broke back into unit one and lived in it for two weeks illegally until the landlord became aware they were squatting there. The landlord confirmed the Police evicted them from Unit 1 and they have been charged with breaking and entering, as well as damage they did to both Unit 1 and 2 during their unlawful occupation of these premises. I find the tenants have 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.

I find it would be just to require the tenant to pay a sum of $1,500.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) because: a. The tenants intentionally refused to vacate the premise without reasonable excuse and broke into the premises, squatting there unlawfully for two weeks after being trespassed by the Police. During this time, they damaged both unit 1 and unit 2. This has caused the landlord stress, inconvenience and loss of revenue as she has had to have the premises repaired before being able to relet them; b. The landlord is entitled to rely on the tenants quitting the premise on the landlords’ lawful termination of the tenancy. The landlord has been lenient as the tenants had been unlawfully subletting three rooms of the premise for some time without permission and in breach of the terms of their tenancy agreements; c. It is in the interests of landlords to receive exemplary damages for the tenants’ breaches of their obligations to quit the premise when they had been given lawful notice terminating their tenancies; and d. it is in the public interest for tenants to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations quit the premise when they have been given lawful notice terminating their tenancy by their landlord. Reimbursement of filing fee

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with her claims, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord has applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details.

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.

The landlord has substantially succeeded in this proceeding. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details are ordered.

The tenants made an application for their names and identifying details to be suppressed. The tenants’ application has been dismissed, including the tenants application for name suppression. The tenants conduct also justifies the publishing of their names and identifying details.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4780183 — net $27,179.38 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 31/01/2024	$20,969.00	Rent arrears (to 31/01/2024
Repairs: Damage to premises	$3,507.00	Repairs: Damage to premises
Replace furnishings: Fridge	$760.00	Replace furnishings: Fridge
Clean house and remove rubbish	$402.50	Clean house and remove rubbish
Exemplary damages: Failure to quit premises	$1,500.00	Failure to quit premises
Filing fee reimbursement: (application againts Tina Gill	$20.44	(application againts Tina Gill
Filing fee reimbursement: (application against Grant Hart	$20.44	(application against Grant Hart
Net award	$27,179.38
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$27,179.38

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenants did not.

I am satisfied that the tenants had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 31 January 2024. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

The rent summaries show that Tina Gill owes $10,961.00 in rent arrears and Grant Hart owes $10,008.00 in rent arrears for [address suppressed].

The tenants are a couple that rented the room together but occupied the entire Unit 2. They had separate rental agreements and were each charged $357.00 rent per week.

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

The tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish.

The tenants did not return the keys.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: a refrigerator. The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlords have proven the damage was deliberate damage caused by the tenants during the tenancy and in retribution for being evicted.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

[The landlord] claims the tenants did not vacate the premises on 10 January 2024, the date the tenancy ended.

A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy. See section 40(1)(e)(i) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Because the landlord has substantially succeeded with her claims, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression

The landlord has applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details.

Non-publication of the landlord’s name and identifying details are ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4780183 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4780183 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent?

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