What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4800247?

The tribunal order states: Lindsay Sakaria, Karen Mutimuti must pay Rent Now Property Management Ltd

How much money was awarded in case 4800247?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,997.06 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $13,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4800247?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4800247?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10391361-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4800247?

The tribunal order states: Lindsay Sakaria, Karen Mutimuti must pay Rent Now Property Management Ltd

How much money was awarded in case 4800247?

Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $4,997.06 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $13,000.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4800247?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4800247?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10391361-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

90 Oreil Avenue, West Harbour, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4800247 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4800247 — net $17,117.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 13 March 2024	$4,997.06	Rent arrears (to 13 March 2024
Repairs: (14 insurance excesses for 14 claims for deliberate/willful damage to the property	$13,000.00	Repairs: (14 insurance excesses for 14 claims for deliberate/willful damage to the property
Exemplary damages: (s61(5) -Abandoning the premises without reasonable excuse	$1,500.00	(s61(5) -Abandoning the premises without reasonable excuse
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$17,117.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17,117.50

Order

Lindsay Sakaria, Karen Mutimuti must pay Rent Now Property Management Ltd $17,117.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5988378-006) to Rent Now Property Management Ltd immediately.

Reasons

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, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent ?

The tenancy was for a fixed term, commencing on 1 August 2023 and ending on 32 July 2024.
On 6 February 2024, the landlord went to the house to undertake a property inspection and became aware that the tenants had abandoned the premises without providing the contractual notice and without reasonable excuse.
The tenants had wilfully damaged the property extensively prior to abandoning it. This resulted in extensive repair work having to be undertaken before the property could be relet.
The tenancy ended on 13 March 2024, the day prior to the new tenants moving into the rental premises.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Abandonment of the premises
The landlord claims the tenant abandoned the premises.
A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse and fails to notify the landlord, not intending to return or to meet their obligations.
A tenant commits an unlawful act if they abandon the premises when the rent is in arrears. Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 61(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence produced by the landlord proves the tenants abandoned the premises without cause on or around 6 February 2024. I find they 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 am satisfied that in committing this unlawful act the tenants deliberately smashed up the house and left the tenancy without giving the landlord notice and without any cause.
This unlawful act has caused the landlord considerable stress and anxiety as well as negatively impacting on the landlord financially due to the lost rent, having to find new tenants and having to undertake significant repairs to the premises, most of which was not covered by insurance.
It is in the public interest to penalise tenants that do not give the required contractual notice and leave the premises in such a state of disrepair that they deliberately hide it from the landlord as long as possible by not notifying the landlord of their intent to end the fixed term tenancy earlier than the contractual end date.
Schedule 1A of the Act provides for exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 to be ordered for a tenant abandoning the premises without cause.
I am satisfied that it is just to award the maximum $1,500.00 to the landlord because the tenants abandoned the premises to hide the significant amount of wilful damage they had done to the property for as long as possible and to avoid being held responsible for the extensive damage to the property. This act was deliberate and has led to delays in getting the property repaired and relet and has caused significant stress and anxiety for the property owner.

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 tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries as well.
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. The interior wall along the hallway, living room, bedrooms were full of holes that appeared from the photographs provided to have been from fist punches and from an implement such as an axe. Many of these holes had gone through the interior walls of the house to the external walls of the house. The damage was extensive. b. The door handle was missing in bedroom 2 and the door panel was full of holes; c. Skirting boards were missing and it appeared that they had been ripped off with force; d. The main entrance door had been kicked in and the timber panel split into three pieces and had to be replaced. e. The door lock was severely damage and had to be replaced. f. The carpet throughout the house was damaged by dog excrement and areas had been chewed by the dog. g. The underlay was damaged by dog chewing and excrement. h. The vinyl in the laundry and kitchen were severely damaged by dog chewing. i. The laundry cupboards were soaked with water and severely damaged. j. The timber on the deck was severely damaged by the dog chewing and clawing at it. k. The wind protecting sheeting along the deck were filled with large holes and had to be replaced. The photographic evidence shows most of the damage was deliberate and some was done by the dog kept by the tenants. l. The bedroom curtains were filthy and damaged and had to be replaced. m. 2-bedroom curtain rails were damaged and had to be replaced.
The damage photographed proves the damage is all wilful damage or caused by the dog(s) the tenants kept at the property. All damage photographed is proves the damage is more than careless and is also 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. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4800247 — net $17,117.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 13 March 2024	$4,997.06	Rent arrears (to 13 March 2024
Repairs: (14 insurance excesses for 14 claims for deliberate/willful damage to the property	$13,000.00	Repairs: (14 insurance excesses for 14 claims for deliberate/willful damage to the property
Exemplary damages: (s61(5) -Abandoning the premises without reasonable excuse	$1,500.00	(s61(5) -Abandoning the premises without reasonable excuse
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$17,117.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$17,117.50

Order

Lindsay Sakaria, Karen Mutimuti must pay Rent Now Property Management Ltd $17,117.50 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5988378-006) to Rent Now Property Management Ltd immediately.

Reasons

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, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for rent ?

The tenancy was for a fixed term, commencing on 1 August 2023 and ending on 32 July 2024.
On 6 February 2024, the landlord went to the house to undertake a property inspection and became aware that the tenants had abandoned the premises without providing the contractual notice and without reasonable excuse.
The tenants had wilfully damaged the property extensively prior to abandoning it. This resulted in extensive repair work having to be undertaken before the property could be relet.
The tenancy ended on 13 March 2024, the day prior to the new tenants moving into the rental premises.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Abandonment of the premises
The landlord claims the tenant abandoned the premises.
A tenancy is abandoned where the tenant leaves the premises without reasonable excuse and fails to notify the landlord, not intending to return or to meet their obligations.
A tenant commits an unlawful act if they abandon the premises when the rent is in arrears. Exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 61(5) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence produced by the landlord proves the tenants abandoned the premises without cause on or around 6 February 2024. I find they 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 am satisfied that in committing this unlawful act the tenants deliberately smashed up the house and left the tenancy without giving the landlord notice and without any cause.
This unlawful act has caused the landlord considerable stress and anxiety as well as negatively impacting on the landlord financially due to the lost rent, having to find new tenants and having to undertake significant repairs to the premises, most of which was not covered by insurance.
It is in the public interest to penalise tenants that do not give the required contractual notice and leave the premises in such a state of disrepair that they deliberately hide it from the landlord as long as possible by not notifying the landlord of their intent to end the fixed term tenancy earlier than the contractual end date.
Schedule 1A of the Act provides for exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 to be ordered for a tenant abandoning the premises without cause.
I am satisfied that it is just to award the maximum $1,500.00 to the landlord because the tenants abandoned the premises to hide the significant amount of wilful damage they had done to the property for as long as possible and to avoid being held responsible for the extensive damage to the property. This act was deliberate and has led to delays in getting the property repaired and relet and has caused significant stress and anxiety for the property owner.

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 tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries as well.
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. The interior wall along the hallway, living room, bedrooms were full of holes that appeared from the photographs provided to have been from fist punches and from an implement such as an axe. Many of these holes had gone through the interior walls of the house to the external walls of the house. The damage was extensive. b. The door handle was missing in bedroom 2 and the door panel was full of holes; c. Skirting boards were missing and it appeared that they had been ripped off with force; d. The main entrance door had been kicked in and the timber panel split into three pieces and had to be replaced. e. The door lock was severely damage and had to be replaced. f. The carpet throughout the house was damaged by dog excrement and areas had been chewed by the dog. g. The underlay was damaged by dog chewing and excrement. h. The vinyl in the laundry and kitchen were severely damaged by dog chewing. i. The laundry cupboards were soaked with water and severely damaged. j. The timber on the deck was severely damaged by the dog chewing and clawing at it. k. The wind protecting sheeting along the deck were filled with large holes and had to be replaced. The photographic evidence shows most of the damage was deliberate and some was done by the dog kept by the tenants. l. The bedroom curtains were filthy and damaged and had to be replaced. m. 2-bedroom curtain rails were damaged and had to be replaced.
The damage photographed proves the damage is all wilful damage or caused by the dog(s) the tenants kept at the property. All damage photographed is proves the damage is more than careless and is also 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. Reimbursement of the filing fee
Because the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4800247 — Property damage at 90 Oreil Avenue, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4800247 — Property damage at 90 Oreil Avenue, West Harbour, Auckland 0618

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

Property management

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

Property management

Frequently asked questions