What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4959033 about?

The tribunal order states: Tahisha Maria Merearihi Harwood must pay [The landlord/s] $4,085.45

How much money was awarded in case 4959033?

Credit: $3,780.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,068.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959033?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10970038-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4959033 about?

The tribunal order states: Tahisha Maria Merearihi Harwood must pay [The landlord/s] $4,085.45

How much money was awarded in case 4959033?

Credit: $3,780.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $8,250.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $2,068.45 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4959033?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4959033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10970038-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4959033 — Property damage

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4959033 — net $4,085.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$2,068.45		Rubbish removal
Repairs: insurance excess x11	$8,250.00		Repairs: insurance excess x11
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Credit		$3,780.00	Credit
Total award	$10,345.45	$3,780.00
Net award	$4,085.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,085.45

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Mr Gulati.

The tenant did not attend the hearing. She was telephoned several times at the commencement of the hearing but did not answer the calls. She had been notified of the hearing by letter and text, accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in her absence.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenancy ended by Tribunal Order 1 on 8 July 2024. The Tribunal terminated the tenancy on the basis of continued and excessive damage to the home over a significant period.

The tenant has made some payment towards the damage already and that is accounted for in this order, as is reimbursement of the bond.

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) RTA.

The landlord has established in photographic evidence that the tenant did not remove all rubbish when vacating. The amount ordered for rubbish removal is proven and considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has established in evidence that the tenant left the premise significantly damaged. They seek the equivalent of 11 amounts of insurance excess that they are being charged by their insurer. The actual amount it will cost to repair the damage is in excess of $40,000.

To be successful in such a claim, 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 1 On 3 July 2024 pursuant to application 4897543 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’s insurance excess is $750 for both intentional and careless damage. They are charging one amount of $750 to cover repairs to all intentional damage and 10 lots of $750 for careless damage in each room.

The photos show significant damage throughout the property. There are large holes in walls, windows are broken, the alarm has been tampered with, the toilet and vanity are broken, doors have been intentionally damaged, cupboards have been wrenched and the carpet is damaged. The property had been newly renovated when this tenancy commenced.

I am satisfied that the evidence established that the damage was caused during the tenancy, is well in excess of fair wear and tear and is a mixture of careless and intentional damage. The tenant is fortunate the landlord’s insurance covers intentional damage.

I consider it just that the tenant be liable for the 11 amounts of insurance excess. They have intentionally and carelessly damaged this home excessively which will cost the owner a significant amount of time and effort to rectify.

As the landlord has been successful in their claims, I approve their application for reimbursement of the filing fee and for suppression orders.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4959033 — net $4,085.45 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rubbish removal	$2,068.45		Rubbish removal
Repairs: insurance excess x11	$8,250.00		Repairs: insurance excess x11
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00		Filing fee reimbursement
Credit		$3,780.00	Credit
Total award	$10,345.45	$3,780.00
Net award	$4,085.45
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,085.45

Order

Tahisha Maria Merearihi Harwood must pay [The landlord/s] $4,085.45 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing represented by Mr Gulati.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. She was telephoned several times at the commencement of the hearing but did not answer the calls. She had been notified of the hearing by letter and text, accordingly pursuant to section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) the hearing continued in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. The tenancy ended by Tribunal Order 1 on 8 July 2024. The Tribunal terminated the tenancy on the basis of continued and excessive damage to the home over a significant period.
The tenant has made some payment towards the damage already and that is accounted for in this order, as is reimbursement of the bond.

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) RTA.
The landlord has established in photographic evidence that the tenant did not remove all rubbish when vacating. The amount ordered for rubbish removal is proven and considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has established in evidence that the tenant left the premise significantly damaged. They seek the equivalent of 11 amounts of insurance excess that they are being charged by their insurer. The actual amount it will cost to repair the damage is in excess of $40,000.
To be successful in such a claim, 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 1 On 3 July 2024 pursuant to application 4897543 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’s insurance excess is $750 for both intentional and careless damage. They are charging one amount of $750 to cover repairs to all intentional damage and 10 lots of $750 for careless damage in each room.
The photos show significant damage throughout the property. There are large holes in walls, windows are broken, the alarm has been tampered with, the toilet and vanity are broken, doors have been intentionally damaged, cupboards have been wrenched and the carpet is damaged. The property had been newly renovated when this tenancy commenced.
I am satisfied that the evidence established that the damage was caused during the tenancy, is well in excess of fair wear and tear and is a mixture of careless and intentional damage. The tenant is fortunate the landlord’s insurance covers intentional damage.
I consider it just that the tenant be liable for the 11 amounts of insurance excess. They have intentionally and carelessly damaged this home excessively which will cost the owner a significant amount of time and effort to rectify.
As the landlord has been successful in their claims, I approve their application for reimbursement of the filing fee and for suppression orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959033 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4959033 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

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

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