What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4940513 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Amy Halstead at Unit/Flat 3, 12 Coates Street, Hamilton East,

How much money was awarded in case 4940513?

Carpet: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940513?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940513?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10867290-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4940513 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Amy Halstead at Unit/Flat 3, 12 Coates Street, Hamilton East,

How much money was awarded in case 4940513?

Carpet: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Kitchen Vinyl: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Painting: $700.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4940513?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4940513?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10867290-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 12 Coates Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4940513 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4940513 — net $1,100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet	$1,500.00	Carpet
Vinyl	$300.00	Vinyl
Painting	$700.00	Painting
Net award	$1,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,100.00

Order

The tenancy of Amy Halstead at Unit/Flat 3, 12 Coates Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at
59am on Tuesday 1 October 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Amy Halstead must pay [The landlord/s] $1,100.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 24 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, termination for assault, compensation for damage, exemplary damages and release of the bond.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 55 (1)(c) RTA provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy where the tenant has assaulted the landlord.
The landlord’s evidence was that he owns a block of flats in Hamilton. The tenant resides in one of the flats. On 13 September 2024, whilst he was visiting the flats, the tenant punched the landlord in the face, spat on him and pushed a shopping trolley into the landlord. The landlord reported the assault to the police.
The landlord provided background evidence by way of a police acknowledgement form recording threatening language being used by the tenant to the landlord earlier in 2024.
I consider that the claim of an assault has been proven by the landlord to the civil standard required. The tenancy is terminated at 11.59 am on Tuesday 1 October 2024.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) RTA.
Where the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord says that the tenant has breached their obligations by; • Failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. • Failing to notify the landlord of damage to the premises. • Intentionally damaging the premises.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 28 June 2024. The notice is defective as it fails to provide the tenant with a date when the breach was to be remedied. The application for termination of the tenancy pursuant to s.56 RTA is dismissed.
The landlord says that the tenant has failed to allow him entry to the premises where notice of his intention to inspect the premises has been given (see s.48(4(b) RTA).
The landlord said that the tenant would stand in the doorway with her arms spread to prevent him gaining entry. The landlord did not provide any further supporting evidence or a copy of the notice of entry to the tenant. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded that the landlord has proven the claim to the standard required and the application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

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. The landlord is insured. The policy of insurance carries an excess on each and every claim of $500.00.
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: The carpet, paint and vinyl were new when the tenancy commenced. The carpet, paint and vinyl has been damaged. It appears that a spade, shovel or similar sharp tool has been used to rip the carpet, walls and vinyl. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. In my view the damage has been intentionally caused.
The landlord provided a quote from ‘’Total Home Care” for; New Carpet$1,900.00 New Vinyl$400.00 Paint and repair$1,000.00
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation in setting the reduced award of damages. 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.
The amounts ordered are proven.
I have not made an award for rubbish removal at this point as the tenancy has not ended. The landlord has provided a quote for rubbish removal. It may be more appropriate for that claim to be reviewed by the landlord once the tenancy has ended and the landlord has been able to gain access to the premises.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord’s name only is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4940513 — net $1,100.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet	$1,500.00	Carpet
Vinyl	$300.00	Vinyl
Painting	$700.00	Painting
Net award	$1,100.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,100.00

Order

The tenancy of Amy Halstead at Unit/Flat 3, 12 Coates Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at
59am on Tuesday 1 October 2024.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Amy Halstead must pay [The landlord/s] $1,100.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
All other applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 24 September 2024.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, termination for assault, compensation for damage, exemplary damages and release of the bond.
The relevant law is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case, the landlord must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “ like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” (the emphasis is mine).

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 55 (1)(c) RTA provides that the Tribunal may terminate a tenancy where the tenant has assaulted the landlord.
The landlord’s evidence was that he owns a block of flats in Hamilton. The tenant resides in one of the flats. On 13 September 2024, whilst he was visiting the flats, the tenant punched the landlord in the face, spat on him and pushed a shopping trolley into the landlord. The landlord reported the assault to the police.
The landlord provided background evidence by way of a police acknowledgement form recording threatening language being used by the tenant to the landlord earlier in 2024.
I consider that the claim of an assault has been proven by the landlord to the civil standard required. The tenancy is terminated at 11.59 am on Tuesday 1 October 2024.
The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) RTA.
Where the breach is capable of remedy, the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
The landlord says that the tenant has breached their obligations by; • Failing to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy. • Failing to notify the landlord of damage to the premises. • Intentionally damaging the premises.
The landlord served a 14-day notice on the tenant on 28 June 2024. The notice is defective as it fails to provide the tenant with a date when the breach was to be remedied. The application for termination of the tenancy pursuant to s.56 RTA is dismissed.
The landlord says that the tenant has failed to allow him entry to the premises where notice of his intention to inspect the premises has been given (see s.48(4(b) RTA).
The landlord said that the tenant would stand in the doorway with her arms spread to prevent him gaining entry. The landlord did not provide any further supporting evidence or a copy of the notice of entry to the tenant. In the circumstances, I am not persuaded that the landlord has proven the claim to the standard required and the application for exemplary damages is dismissed.

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. The landlord is insured. The policy of insurance carries an excess on each and every claim of $500.00.
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: The carpet, paint and vinyl were new when the tenancy commenced. The carpet, paint and vinyl has been damaged. It appears that a spade, shovel or similar sharp tool has been used to rip the carpet, walls and vinyl. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. In my view the damage has been intentionally caused.
The landlord provided a quote from ‘’Total Home Care” for; New Carpet$1,900.00 New Vinyl$400.00 Paint and repair$1,000.00
I have taken into account betterment and depreciation in setting the reduced award of damages. 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.
The amounts ordered are proven.
I have not made an award for rubbish removal at this point as the tenancy has not ended. The landlord has provided a quote for rubbish removal. It may be more appropriate for that claim to be reviewed by the landlord once the tenancy has ended and the landlord has been able to gain access to the premises.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord’s name only is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940513 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 12 Coates Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4940513 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 3, 12 Coates Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

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

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions