What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4980308 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 4980308?

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 4980308?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4980308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11119118-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4980308 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 4980308?

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 4980308?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4980308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11119118-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2E, 94 Dominion Road, Mount Eden, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4980308 — Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
Bezana Azmin Nisha must pay [The landlord/s] $11,646.60 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance by the tenant. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord seeks compensation for significant damage caused by the tenant. The tenant moved out on 7 August 2024. The landlord was granted possession pursuant to Tenancy Tribunal order TT4919193. A new tenant moved in on 26 October 2024.
The landlord confirmed during the hearing that there is no insurance available for the damage caused by the tenant.

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 is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photographic evidence in support of the claims for cleaning and rubbish removal. The tenant left behind a significant amount of personal belongings, furniture and rubbish which had to be removed. I have also sighted the expense schedule in support of these two claims.
Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenant breached his obligations in respect of this.
The claims for cleaning and rubbish removal are proven.
The landlord claims that the building manager had to serve three breach notices on the tenant. Each breach involved a search of the CCTV security footage resulting in a $150.00 fee for each search of the security footage. I have sighted the three Body Corporate breach notices confirming the fee. I am satisfied that the tenant is responsible for these charges.

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 was caused during the tenancy: A. Damage to living room walls. The tenant, without permission, painted the living room walls blue and scribbled on the pillars in the living room. B. Damage to the walls of bedroom one C. Damage to the walls of bedroom two D. Damage to the apartment entrance door. The door and the locks had to be replaced. E. The interior doors of both bedrooms were damaged and had to be replaced. F. Damage to the bathroom mirror light fixture G. The curtains and curtain rods had been removed and had to be replaced. H. Damage to two window handles and two safety latches which required replacing. I. The original heater had been removed and had to be replaced. J. Damage to kitchen cabinets which had to be repaired K. Damage to the living room carpet.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord provided extensive photographic evidence of the damage. I also sighted photographic evidence from a routine inspection report dated 12 January 2023 which confirmed the apartment to be in reasonably good condition. The exit inspection evidence confirmed the significant damage caused by the tenant. I was also provided with a Healthy Homes assessment report dated 29 September 2022 which confirmed that the apartment was in a reasonable state of repair and cleanliness at that time. The landlord also provided a full itemised expense schedule from Juan Property Maintenance dated 20 August 2024.
Based on the evidence provided by the landlord I find that the damaged caused by the tenant was intentional. The tenant is liable for the full cost of repair and replacement (less depreciation).
The amounts ordered are proved. The amounts ordered include GST.
The landlord’s claims in respect of replacement ceiling and wall lights are dismissed due to there being a lack of evidence to support these claims.
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 for the carpet and the heater, I have taken into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

Is the tenant responsible for a loss of rent?

The landlord seeks four week’s lost rent calculated at the current rate charged (after the tenancy ended) of $585.00, as compensation for the time that the apartment cannot be rented while the significant repair work was carried out.
The landlord claims that they lost at least four weeks rent following the end of the tenancy as they were unable to secure tenants for the apartment until 26 October 2024.
When the repairs are able to be done, the apartment needed to be vacant for at least four weeks for the work to be completed. Therefore, the landlords seek four weeks lost rent at the current rate being charged.
The general law provides that if an applicant has suffered damage that is not too remote, then they must, so far as money can do it, be restored to the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. However, compensation cannot be recovered for all types of damage and a line must be drawn somewhere. Therefore, the law does not provide for compensation where the damage is considered too remote, Recovery is limited to actual loss resulting from the breach that was reasonably foreseeable when the contract was made.
I am satisfied in this case that a reasonable person would foresee that the premises may not be able to be re-let immediately where this type of damage occurred requiring significant repair work. In addition, a landlord cannot expect that premises will always be re-let immediately after the end of a tenancy.
After considering all the circumstances, I am satisfied that compensation of four weeks’ rent is justified, and the rate which applied during the tenancy is appropriate. Therefore, I award $2340.00.
The claim is proven.
The landlord’s claim for further rent compensation due to people not being able to view the apartment is dismissed.
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4980308 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2E, 94 Dominion Road, Mount Eden, Auckland

Tenancy Tribunal case 4980308 — Property damage at Unit/Flat 2E, 94 Dominion Road, Mount Eden, Auckland

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?

Is the tenant responsible for a loss of rent?

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?

Is the tenant responsible for a loss of rent?