What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4855940?

The tribunal order states: William Wakaiti Tekani Jenner to pay Jasu Mati Bhana and Stephen Chiman

How much money was awarded in case 4855940?

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 4855940?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11874671-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4855940?

The tribunal order states: William Wakaiti Tekani Jenner to pay Jasu Mati Bhana and Stephen Chiman

How much money was awarded in case 4855940?

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 4855940?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4855940?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11874671-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

92B Ranolf Street, Victoria, ROTORUA 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4855940 — Exemplary damages

Order

William Wakaiti Tekani Jenner to pay Jasu Mati Bhana and Stephen Chiman Bhana as Trustees for the Ranolf Trust $8,927.01 immediately, calculated as follows: Description of AwardAmount Rent arrears to 11 March 2025$2,822.86 Rubbish removal$749.00 Broken ranchslider glass (Oct 2024)$476.10 Broken ranchslider glass under awning (Oct 2024)$216.77 Broken bedroom window (NE corner)$153.08 Four-panel ranchslider glass (Nov 2022, incl. penalty)$1,095.92 Broken glass – opposite unit 90E (Nov 2022)$320.00 Rear soffit damage$1,000.00 SW bedroom window (two panels)$342.70 Rear unit – smashed ranchslider glass$116.08 Rent recovery cost (social worker assistance)$115.00 Additional rent recovery cost$172.50 Security services for inspection$120.00 Exemplary damages (failure to quit premises)$1,200.00 Application filing fee$27.00 Total$8,927.01

Reasons

The Landlord attended 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.
On 30 January 2025, the Tribunal made an Order terminating this tenancy, granting rent arrears (to 30 January 2025) and refund of the bond.
The Landlord claims the Tenant did not leave the premises and had to be trespassed with the help of Police. The Landlord claims exemplary damages for the Tenant’s failure to quit the premises, and lost rent.

How much is owed for rent?

The Landlord provided rent records which prove the amount of rent owing by the Tenant up to the Tenant’s late vacate date on 11 March 2025: $2,822.86

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 did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The Landlord claims $749.00 for rubbish removal which I consider reasonable, having regard to the amount of rubbish left at the premises at 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 following damage occurred during the tenancy and is attributed to the tenant or persons for whom the tenant is responsible: a. Broken entrance lounge ranchslider glass (second incident October 2024) – $476.10. b. Broken entrance lounge ranchslider glass beneath the awning (October 2024) – $216.77. c. Broken window in bedroom one (northeast) – $153.08. d. Broken four-panel entrance lounge ranchslider glass (November 2022) – $1,095.92 (includes late payment penalty of $146.97; Mr Jenner failed to pay as agreed). e. Broken glass in opposite unit (90E) – $320.00 (incident occurred during a failed inspection attempt when the Tenant became agitated). f. Rear soffit damage – $1,000.00 (evidence indicates the soffit was intentionally struck after remedial gutter work had been underway and was near completion). g. SW bedroom window (two panels) – $342.70 (incident was captured on a neighbour’s security camera). h. Smashed lower ranchslider glass in rear unit (unoccupied at the time) – damage facilitated unlawful access and theft – $116.08.
I have reviewed the Landlord’s photographs and invoices. I have reviewed Police reports and photographs of the Tenant being arrested by following his violent outburst in October 2024. The nature and extent of the damage exceeds fair wear and tear. In all cases I find the damage has, more likely than not, been caused by the Tenant’s inability to control his temper. The Tenant has not disproved liability for this damage.
Additional costs incurred as a result of tenant conduct include: a. Rent recovery costs – $115.00 and $172.50 – the Landlord paid a social worker to work with the Tenant to secure payments from Work and Income for his accommodation. b. Security services – $120 was incurred by the Landlord in hiring a security guard to accompany the landlord for a property inspection due to safety concerns relating to the Tenant’s volatile behaviour.
I consider these are actual and reasonable losses which the Landlord can recover.
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.

Did the Tenant fail to quit the premises?

The Landlord claims the Tenant failed to quit the premises. Following issue of the 30 January 2025 Order terminating the Tenancy, the Tenant remained behind at the premises and refused to leave.
It appeared to the Tenant the Landlord had left the premises after the 30 January Order was issued and so the Landlord entered the property and attempted to retake possession, only to find that the Tenant returned and called the Police to the premises.
The Landlord provided the Police with a copy of the of the termination order and a trespass order for the Tenant. The Police told the Landlord they would need to get an eviction warrant. I gather the Tenant would still not leave at this point.
The Landlord has obtained an Order compensating them for lost rent, but the Landlord is still out of pocket and had to endure the Tenant’s intransigent behaviour.
Stepping back, it appears to me the Tenant may not have received a copy of the Tribunal’s Order or may not have checked his email. However, the Tenant has been careless and ignorant of his obligations.
I award $1,200.00 in exemplary damages to the Landlord for the Tenant’s unlawful act of failing to quit the premises. Filing Fee
Because Jasu Mati Bhana (Trustee for Ranolf Trust), Stephen Chiman Bhana (Trustee for Ranolf Trust) has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing feel $27.00.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855940 — Exemplary damages at 92B Ranolf Street, Victoria, ROTORUA 3010

Tenancy Tribunal case 4855940 — Exemplary damages at 92B Ranolf Street, Victoria, ROTORUA 3010

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?

Did the Tenant fail to quit the premises?

Property management

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?

Did the Tenant fail to quit the premises?

Property management