What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036542 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 5036542?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $192.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Paint: $210.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $261.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $204.19 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,900.00 awarded to landlord; Tip Fees: $56.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036542?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036542?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11392545-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5036542 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 5036542?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $192.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Paint: $210.75 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $261.50 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $204.19 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,900.00 awarded to landlord; Tip Fees: $56.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5036542?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5036542?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11392545-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5036542 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5036542 — net $4,651.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$261.50	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning curtains	$192.00	Cleaning curtains
Tip fees	$56.00	Tip fees
Replacement exterior light	$204.19	Replacement exterior light
Paint	$210.75	Paint
Insurance excesses for carpet, lino, couch and bed	$2,900.00	Insurance excesses for carpet, lino, couch and bed
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,651.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,651.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Holly Alison Haultain Kings Mansfield must pay [The landlord/s] $4,651.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the re-scheduled hearing, by telephone.
Unfortunately, the Tribunal was unable to contact the tenant by telephone, after trying twice to do so.
Both parties had previously attended the hearing by telephone on 4/12/2024 when the matter was adjourned to allow the tenant to obtain legal advice.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 18/4/2024 to 18/4/2025 at a rental of $580.00 per week.
The Tribunal terminated the tenancy immediately by order dated 2/10/2024 and awarded rent arrears, call out fees and exemplary damages of $2,500.00 for interference with fire alarms. The bond was refunded to the landlord.
On 14/10/2024 the landlord applied for compensation of $8,303.50 and exemplary damages for subletting without consent.
By the time of the hearing on 4/12/2024 the landlord had reduced the compensation claim to $4,124.44, but continued with the exemplary damages claim.

Did the tenant comply with her 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 landlord claimed compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, replacement locks and an exterior light and a missing bed and mattress protector.
In support of the claim for compensation the landlord provided property inspection reports dated 18/4, 11/6 and 6/10/2024 with photographs, invoices, text messages and a fourteen day notice dated 26/9/2024.
The tenant suggested she was unable to clean the premises or remove rubbish when the tenancy ended because she was out of the City and her request for extra time was refused.
As “the landlord chose to exercise her right to terminate the tenancy” the tenant did not believe she was liable for the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant accepted that she removed the exterior light but declined to make any comment about the missing double bed and mattress protector.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The double bed and mattress protector were missing at the end of the tenancy.
In addition, the landlord had to replace an exterior light.
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.
The landlord claimed insurance excesses for carpet replacement in the lounge, hallway and two bedrooms due to cigarette burns and stains, the lino in the kitchen because of a gauge, and replacement of a couch due to cigarette burns.
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 tenant suggested the marks on the kitchen floor were food colouring rather than the tattoo ink submitted by the landlord, and that she would have removed this had she been given the chance to do so.
Further the tenant submitted the holes in the walls were either pre-existing or wear and tear.
The tenant disputed there were any cigarette burns on the couch.
I am satisfied from the extensive evidence provided by the landlord, in particular the property inspection reports, that significant damage was caused during the tenancy to carpets, lino and walls.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As the landlord only claimed insurance excesses and only the cost of the paint but not the painting, I have not taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations and should not be better or worse off.

Did the tenant sublet or part with possession of the premises without consent?

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
The landlord believed that the tenant only resided in the premises for around two months, and that for the last three months of the tenancy she sublet the premises to other people.
In support of the claim the landlord provided evidence of mail addressed to other people left on the bench, including what appeared to be accounts; texts from the tenant confirming she divided her time each week between Wellington and Dunedin; and a message from a neighbour confirming the presence of several people other than the tenant at the premises.
The landlord confirmed a conversation they had with a Senior Police Constable about the whereabouts of the tenant and the identities of the likely occupants of the premises.
Further the landlord highlighted information from the fire system engineer produced at a previous hearing about whom he encountered at the premises when he attended due to the fire alarm activating.
The tenant denied she sublet the premises, rather she suggested that friends “looked in to make sure the property was secure”.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement has a clause prohibiting the tenant from subletting or parting with possession of the premises.
I am persuaded by the evidence that for at least the last three months of the tenancy, the tenant allowed other people to live at the premises without the prior written consent of the landlord in circumstances which more probably than not amounted to subletting.
I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act by parting with possession of the premises and subletting.
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.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the tenant.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
I am satisfied an inference can be drawn that the tenant intentionally parted with possession and sublet the premises to other people without seeking consent from the landlord.
The tenant agreed she was frequently absent from the premises.
The evidence from the fire engineer was that when he visited the occupants seen by him were not the tenant.
The message from the neighbour confirmed that various other people were at the premises at the time of the fire alarm incidents.
The effect on the landlord has been significant, because of the damage to the premises and the need to seek termination due to rent arrears.
When taking into account the circumstances set out in section 109(3), I consider an award of $500.00 exemplary damages is appropriate.
As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because they have been wholly successful with the claim.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5036542 — net $4,651.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Lock/key replacement	$261.50	Lock/key replacement
Cleaning curtains	$192.00	Cleaning curtains
Tip fees	$56.00	Tip fees
Replacement exterior light	$204.19	Replacement exterior light
Paint	$210.75	Paint
Insurance excesses for carpet, lino, couch and bed	$2,900.00	Insurance excesses for carpet, lino, couch and bed
Exemplary damages	$500.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$4,651.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$4,651.44

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
Holly Alison Haultain Kings Mansfield must pay [The landlord/s] $4,651.44 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the re-scheduled hearing, by telephone.
Unfortunately, the Tribunal was unable to contact the tenant by telephone, after trying twice to do so.
Both parties had previously attended the hearing by telephone on 4/12/2024 when the matter was adjourned to allow the tenant to obtain legal advice.
The tenancy was for a fixed term from 18/4/2024 to 18/4/2025 at a rental of $580.00 per week.
The Tribunal terminated the tenancy immediately by order dated 2/10/2024 and awarded rent arrears, call out fees and exemplary damages of $2,500.00 for interference with fire alarms. The bond was refunded to the landlord.
On 14/10/2024 the landlord applied for compensation of $8,303.50 and exemplary damages for subletting without consent.
By the time of the hearing on 4/12/2024 the landlord had reduced the compensation claim to $4,124.44, but continued with the exemplary damages claim.

Did the tenant comply with her 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 landlord claimed compensation for cleaning, rubbish removal, replacement locks and an exterior light and a missing bed and mattress protector.
In support of the claim for compensation the landlord provided property inspection reports dated 18/4, 11/6 and 6/10/2024 with photographs, invoices, text messages and a fourteen day notice dated 26/9/2024.
The tenant suggested she was unable to clean the premises or remove rubbish when the tenancy ended because she was out of the City and her request for extra time was refused.
As “the landlord chose to exercise her right to terminate the tenancy” the tenant did not believe she was liable for the state of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
The tenant accepted that she removed the exterior light but declined to make any comment about the missing double bed and mattress protector.
I am persuaded by the evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The tenant did not return the keys.
The double bed and mattress protector were missing at the end of the tenancy.
In addition, the landlord had to replace an exterior light.
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.
The landlord claimed insurance excesses for carpet replacement in the lounge, hallway and two bedrooms due to cigarette burns and stains, the lino in the kitchen because of a gauge, and replacement of a couch due to cigarette burns.
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 tenant suggested the marks on the kitchen floor were food colouring rather than the tattoo ink submitted by the landlord, and that she would have removed this had she been given the chance to do so.
Further the tenant submitted the holes in the walls were either pre-existing or wear and tear.
The tenant disputed there were any cigarette burns on the couch.
I am satisfied from the extensive evidence provided by the landlord, in particular the property inspection reports, that significant damage was caused during the tenancy to carpets, lino and walls.
The amounts ordered are proved.
As the landlord only claimed insurance excesses and only the cost of the paint but not the painting, I have not taken into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached her obligations and should not be better or worse off.

Did the tenant sublet or part with possession of the premises without consent?

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the premises without their prior written consent.
The landlord believed that the tenant only resided in the premises for around two months, and that for the last three months of the tenancy she sublet the premises to other people.
In support of the claim the landlord provided evidence of mail addressed to other people left on the bench, including what appeared to be accounts; texts from the tenant confirming she divided her time each week between Wellington and Dunedin; and a message from a neighbour confirming the presence of several people other than the tenant at the premises.
The landlord confirmed a conversation they had with a Senior Police Constable about the whereabouts of the tenant and the identities of the likely occupants of the premises.
Further the landlord highlighted information from the fire system engineer produced at a previous hearing about whom he encountered at the premises when he attended due to the fire alarm activating.
The tenant denied she sublet the premises, rather she suggested that friends “looked in to make sure the property was secure”.
In the absence of a specific provision in the tenancy agreement prohibiting subletting or parting of possession of the tenancy, a tenant may do so but only with the prior written consent of the landlord. The landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably. See section 44(2) and (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 44(2A)(b) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy agreement has a clause prohibiting the tenant from subletting or parting with possession of the premises.
I am persuaded by the evidence that for at least the last three months of the tenancy, the tenant allowed other people to live at the premises without the prior written consent of the landlord in circumstances which more probably than not amounted to subletting.
I find the tenant has committed an unlawful act by parting with possession of the premises and subletting.
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.
Exemplary damages under the Act are different from compensation. The provision of such damages is designed to punish and deter; Attorney-General (Commissioner of Crown Lands) v Little Bo Peep Sheep Company Ltd (HC CIV 2010-412-134).
In making an award of exemplary damages I need to consider the four matters set out in section 109(3).
First, I need to consider the intent of the tenant.
For intent there must be actual knowledge of the breach. In a recent case the District Court confirmed that intentional means “in the sense of deliberately and in full knowledge” TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182.
I am satisfied an inference can be drawn that the tenant intentionally parted with possession and sublet the premises to other people without seeking consent from the landlord.
The tenant agreed she was frequently absent from the premises.
The evidence from the fire engineer was that when he visited the occupants seen by him were not the tenant.
The message from the neighbour confirmed that various other people were at the premises at the time of the fire alarm incidents.
The effect on the landlord has been significant, because of the damage to the premises and the need to seek termination due to rent arrears.
When taking into account the circumstances set out in section 109(3), I consider an award of $500.00 exemplary damages is appropriate.
As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the landlord pursuant to section 95A because they have been wholly successful with the claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036542 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5036542 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant sublet or part with possession of the premises without consent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

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

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Did the tenant sublet or part with possession of the premises without consent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions