What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4846759 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case to suppress the

How much money was awarded in case 4846759?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4846759?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4846759?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10609694-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4846759 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case to suppress the

How much money was awarded in case 4846759?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4846759?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4846759?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10609694-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4846759 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4846759 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case to suppress the name of one of the tenants, and the Tribunal orders suppression of that tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

The tenants failed to attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The application for name suppression relates to one of the tenants only. This is due to the fact that the landlord believes she was already living elsewhere when the damage occurred although took no steps in having herself removed as a tenant.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 26 January 2024. Although this was due to the tenant abandoning the tenancy as the tenancy was not due to expire pursuant to the fixed term tenancy on 15 February 2024.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is not seeking payment of the rent for the duration of the fixed term tenancy.

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. At the time that the landlord realised the tenant had abandoned the property, there was a significant amount of belongings left behind and a significant clean-up was required.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy:
The smoke alarms had been removed and new batteries were required. The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries. One of the internal doors completely removed.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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:
There were a number of doors damaged. This included removal of door handles and one door was completely missing.
There was a piece of the vinyl flooring cut out of the dining living area and the wooden floor ‘burrowed’ out.
There was damage to the wall in the bathroom and wallpaper damage in one of the bedrooms.
A total of six separate insurance claims were required resulting in six separate excess payments.
Due to the nature of the damage and the abandonment, the landlord obtained a meth test, although this was clear, it was reasonable for the landlord to complete such testing.
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 taken into account 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
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 tenant had received a third consecutive notices for rent arrears. The scheduled inspection was due and the day following the inspection, the tenant advised that they had left the property. 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.
In considering all of the evidence I award the amount of $200.00.
W Thompson And Company Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Leanne Macrae 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.
The tenants had removed the smoke alarms and the batteries. The alarms were found in a drawer. I find on the evidence therefore that they have committed an unlawful act.
Given this very deliberate act, I make an award accordingly.
It is to be noted that the bond has in fact already been paid to the landlord and the above calculations are to show the amounts ordered but take into consideration the payment already of the bond to the landlord.
Because W Thompson And Company Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Leanne Macrae has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case to suppress the name of one of the tenants, and the Tribunal orders suppression of that tenant’s name and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

The tenants failed to attend the hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The application for name suppression relates to one of the tenants only. This is due to the fact that the landlord believes she was already living elsewhere when the damage occurred although took no steps in having herself removed as a tenant.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 26 January 2024. Although this was due to the tenant abandoning the tenancy as the tenancy was not due to expire pursuant to the fixed term tenancy on 15 February 2024.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. The landlord is not seeking payment of the rent for the duration of the fixed term tenancy.

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. At the time that the landlord realised the tenant had abandoned the property, there was a significant amount of belongings left behind and a significant clean-up was required.
The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy:
The smoke alarms had been removed and new batteries were required. The landlord had to replace light bulbs and smoke alarm batteries. One of the internal doors completely removed.
The amounts ordered are proven.

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:
There were a number of doors damaged. This included removal of door handles and one door was completely missing.
There was a piece of the vinyl flooring cut out of the dining living area and the wooden floor ‘burrowed’ out.
There was damage to the wall in the bathroom and wallpaper damage in one of the bedrooms.
A total of six separate insurance claims were required resulting in six separate excess payments.
Due to the nature of the damage and the abandonment, the landlord obtained a meth test, although this was clear, it was reasonable for the landlord to complete such testing.
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 taken into account 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 taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.
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 tenant had received a third consecutive notices for rent arrears. The scheduled inspection was due and the day following the inspection, the tenant advised that they had left the property. 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.
In considering all of the evidence I award the amount of $200.00.
W Thompson And Company Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Leanne Macrae 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.
The tenants had removed the smoke alarms and the batteries. The alarms were found in a drawer. I find on the evidence therefore that they have committed an unlawful act.
Given this very deliberate act, I make an award accordingly.
It is to be noted that the bond has in fact already been paid to the landlord and the above calculations are to show the amounts ordered but take into consideration the payment already of the bond to the landlord.
Because W Thompson And Company Limited T/A Harcourts As Agent For Leanne Macrae has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4846759 — Property damage

Tenancy Tribunal case 4846759 — Property damage

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?

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?