What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4906733 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 4906733?

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 4906733?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906733?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11658475-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4906733 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 4906733?

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 4906733?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4906733?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11658475-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4906733 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Danielle-Lee Simmonds must pay [the landlord] $3,885.80 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, represented by Mr S. There was no appearance for the tenant.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The bond of $2000 has already been refunded to the landlord for payment of some damage that was repaired during the tenancy. The landlord provided evidence that the amount claimed for those repairs came to $1,760.86, leaving a balance of $239.14 available to be deducted from the current amounts claimed.

How much is owed for rent?

The tenancy ended on 6 September 2024. The landlord explained that the tenant gave notice but did not move out immediately. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy was $1000.

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).
The landlord provided photographs showing that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, and did not remove all rubbish. The photos showed piles of rubbish in the shed and a number of items strewn around the property. Clearing the rubbish required two trips to the dump and the landlord was assisted by a colleague who charged $100.
The landlord provided a series of invoices and receipts which covered a range of matters, including labour, products and repairs across a number of different claims. It is preferable for the landlord to seek a total sum for each item (cleaning, rubbish removal, repairs) having calculated the amount being sought, based on labour, disbursements etc. It is not the role of the Tribunal to collate the evidence in order to calculate the total amount claimed for each item.
The landlord claimed 15 hours cleaning at a rate of $69.00 per hour. That is a very high hourly rate for cleaning. It is not reasonable that the tenant should pay that when the hourly rate for cleaners is usually less than that. I have allowed $45.00 an hour, making a total of $675.
The hourly rate of $69 for lawn-mowing is also very high. However, based on the length of lawns and weedwork required, total of $138.00 for gardens and lawns is reasonable.
The landlord provided receipts for cleaning products and weedkiller.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The landlord provided a receipt for replacement keys.
The smoke alarm was missing and the landlord provided a receipt for a replacement smoke alarm.
The amounts ordered are proved. Smoke alarms
The landlord sought exemplary damages because the tenant had removed the smoke alarm. This was the second time this had occurred. In an email dated 12 July 2024, following an inspection, the landlord had noted that the smoke alarm had been removed and that he had replaced it. At the end of the tenancy, the new one was missing.
Under section 40(2)(ab) of the Act, the 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. Interference with a smoke alarm has been found to be a means of escape from fire.
A breach of this section is an “unlawful act” and may attract an award of exemplary damages of up to a maximum of $4,000.
If the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant committed the unlawful act intentionally, and that, having regard to— a. the intent of that person in committing the unlawful act; and b. the effect of the unlawful act; and c. the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and d. the public interest,— it would be just to require the person against whom the order is sought to pay a sum in the nature of exemplary damages, the Tribunal may make an order accordingly.
The tenant removed or allowed the smoke alarm to be removed when she had already been reminded of her obligations when the landlord emailed her in July. The regulations regarding smoke alarms are in place primarily to save lives from fire and secondly to protect a major asset. Both the landlord and tenant must ensure they are not tampered with. There is a strong public interest in requiring functioning smoke alarms in residences and therefore it is just to order the tenant to pay exemplary damages of $750.

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 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 said that following damage was caused during the tenancy: a cracked kitchen tile, damaged letterbox, some holes and scrapes in the walls, a ripped curtain, a damaged power point, a collapsed kitchen cabinet. He provided photographs, showing the damage, and invoices and receipts for repairs. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
The landlord is reminded that photographs of the premises at the start of the tenancy may be required where the damage is in dispute.
He should also collate the amounts claimed for each item.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906733 — Rent arrears

Tenancy Tribunal case 4906733 — Rent arrears

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?