What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4932858 about?

The tribunal order states: Gladys Teu Wihiria Paea and Francis Paris Purcell must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4932858?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $132.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $396.00 awarded to landlord; Walls And Door: $2,185.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $540.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932858?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10804616-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4932858 about?

The tribunal order states: Gladys Teu Wihiria Paea and Francis Paris Purcell must pay [The landlord/s]

How much money was awarded in case 4932858?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Heat Pump Remote: $132.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $396.00 awarded to landlord; Walls And Door: $2,185.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $540.50 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4932858?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4932858?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10804616-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

17 Lorne Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4932858 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4932858 — net $3,880.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$396.00	Window repairs
Heat pump remote	$132.00	Heat pump remote
Rubbish removal	$540.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Walls and door	$2,185.00	Repairs: Walls and door
Exemplary damages	$600.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,880.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,880.50

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.

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

The tenancy has ended, and the landlords have received the bond from the tenants. The bond was used to cover end of tenancy claims including cleaning, curtains, light bulbs, barstools and lock replacements.

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 remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photographs of mattresses’, bed base, a couch, chair, a bike, a wooden table and bags of rubbish. The amount claimed is awarded.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The heat pump remote was not returned.

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 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 window in a bedroom and glass in a lounge door were broken.

One door and seven walls were damaged. a. The lounge had one wall with a large partially repaired hole and the other wall had 5 small repairs. b. Bedroom 2 had many large holes and damage. c. Bedroom 3 hand two walls with small holes and dents in them. d. Bedroom 4 had drawings on one wall that could not be cleaned and a large crack in the lower wall.

The tenants did not appear to represent themselves or give any explanation for these damages. No adjournment was applied for. The landlord contends that the damage is careless or intentional damage.

I find that the large holes to the walls and door are intentional damage. The wall with children’s writing and smaller holes I find is careless damage. A tenant is liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional.

The landlord provided insurance information for the premises which confirmed that there is a landlord extension covering vandalism and intentional acts by a tenant. There is an excess of $1000.00 per incident.

The insurance broker emailed the landlord confirming that the excess is applied per event so damage to one wall would attract one excess payment. The value of each repair appears to be less that the excess when divided into separate incidents.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant disproved liability for the damage.

The claim for repairs to the walls and door is based on a quote. I do not find that the landlord has established a loss because the precise amount has not been quantified. I award a nominal sum, of which $700.00 I find is to cover intentional damages, to recognise that the tenant has breached their obligations and have caused damages for which they are liable.

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. Exemplary damages

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or permitting the use of methamphetamine.

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The premises were tested for the presence of Methamphetamine at the premises on 4 June 2021, by Meth Expertsnz, prior to the tenancy starting on 28 June 2021.The landlord said that the premises were empty form the testing date until the tenancy began.

Meth Expertsnz provided a full report with photographs of sample locations confirming that methamphetamine was not detected.

The premises were retested on 10 June 2024, after the tenancy ended, by Results group New Zealand. An in-depth screening report was provided with photographs of sample locations that corresponded with the pre-test locations.

This report found areas of methamphetamine contamination with amounts including 6.9μg/100cm², 2.24μg/100cm², 2.3 μg/100cm², and 1.76 μg/100cm² as reported by Analytica laboratories on 14 June 2024.

I find that it has been established that methamphetamine was used at the premises during the tenancy.

It is an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 for any person to have in their possession or consume any controlled drug and to allow any premises to be used for the commission of an offence under that Act and (ss 7 and 12).

“Methamphetamine” is included as a controlled drug under Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Tenancy Tribunal has previously found, and I agree, that the consumption of methamphetamine on premises amounts to the use of those premises for an unlawful purpose, in breach of section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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.

The use of drugs is an intentional act, and the consequence is that other people at the premises can be affected and endangered. The use of drugs can affect a landlord’s insurance and ability to re rent the premises. It is in the public interest that drugs are not used. I find it just to award exemplary damages of $600.00.

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that 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 is successful in their application and applied for name suppression, this is granted.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4932858 — net $3,880.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Window repairs	$396.00	Window repairs
Heat pump remote	$132.00	Heat pump remote
Rubbish removal	$540.50	Rubbish removal
Repairs: Walls and door	$2,185.00	Repairs: Walls and door
Exemplary damages	$600.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,880.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,880.50

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not appear.

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

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

The tenant did not remove all rubbish. The landlord provided photographs of mattresses’, bed base, a couch, chair, a bike, a wooden table and bags of rubbish. The amount claimed is awarded.

The following chattels were missing at the end of the tenancy: The heat pump remote was not returned.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The following damage was caused during the tenancy:

A window in a bedroom and glass in a lounge door were broken.

The tenants did not appear to represent themselves or give any explanation for these damages. No adjournment was applied for. The landlord contends that the damage is careless or intentional damage.

The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant disproved liability for the damage.

The amounts ordered are proved.

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by using or permitting the use of methamphetamine.

A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Meth Expertsnz provided a full report with photographs of sample locations confirming that methamphetamine was not detected.

I find that it has been established that methamphetamine was used at the premises during the tenancy.

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The landlord is successful in their application and applied for name suppression, this is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932858 — Property damage at 17 Lorne Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4932858 — Property damage at 17 Lorne Street, Melville, Hamilton 3206

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

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