What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5049469 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 5049469?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,950.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5049469?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5049469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12098352-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5049469 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 5049469?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $280.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $4,950.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $500.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5049469?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5049469?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12098352-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5049469 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5049469 — net $3,437.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Insurance excesses damage x9	$4,950.00	Repairs: Insurance excesses damage x9
Rubbish removal	$500.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$280.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,437.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,437.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Michelle De Thierry must pay [The landlord/s] $3,437.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claim for decontamination costs and the costs of testing for methamphetamine are not proven and dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended todays in person hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for: a. The costs of testing for methamphetamine contamination. b. Insurance excesses x9 @$550 each for damage to the property. c. Costs of rekeying the front door d. Costs of rubbish removal $500.00 e. The filing fee
This was a tenancy of 3.5 years. The landlord says that during the tenancy they had trouble obtaining access to the property to do repairs, maintenance or inspections. They say that they would give notice and when they would turn up the tenant would often deny them access. The landlord and the owner said that the tenants would be aggressive and threatening to them. Whilst the property manager had a spare key she did not feel safe using it, because of the aggressiveness that had been shown to her by the tenant and that the tenant at some stages had a large dog at the property which was not authorised.
At the beginning of the tenancy the landlord had the property tested for methamphetamine contamination. The composite tests shown no presence of methamphetamine. When the new property managers took over in 2021, they had the property tested again and once again the results showed no presence of methamphetamine.
The landlord had the property retested on the 21 June 2024, after they had been to the property. They suspected methamphetamine use due to the condition of the property and some suspicious items – burnt tin foil patches found at the property.
The first tests that were completed showed small levels of methamphetamine at the property in composite tests of 0.22 μg or a theoretical maximum of 2.2 μg.
Whilst this was an increase from the composite testing in 2020 and 2021, I am not satisfied that it proves on the balance of probabilities that the tenant or her invitees used methamphetamine at the property during the tenancy because: a. It was not clear if the areas tested in 2024 were in exactly the same or similar areas as those completed in 2020 or 2021. In previous cases before me I have received evidence that unless the testing spots are in near identical places that they cannot be directly comparable. The increase in the presence of methamphetamine is not significant statistically (in other words it is only a minor increase) and therefore it may be attributable to where the samples were taken or how the samples were taken. b. The discreet tests were only taken in 2024. As no discreet sampling occurred in 2020 or 2021 it is impossible for me to know where any alleged use may have occurred. c. The person who completed the assessment report in 2024 wrote: “These levels are consistent with minor consumption and may be historic in nature. We do not believe the property has an underlying methamphetamine issue.” It is clear that the report writer could not accurately assess when the methamphetamine use may have occurred. d. The items found at the property, whilst suspicious, were not tested for methamphetamine residue.

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 leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs taken at the final inspection on the 7 June 2024. Those photographs show a considerable amount of rubbish and tenant’s belongings left behind. None of the belongings appear to have any value.
The landlord removed some of the rubbish themselves and hired a person off market place to remove the rest. They say that they paid $500-$550 in cash.
Usually the Tribunal would expect to see invoices or receipts for such payments, but given the landlord who did that work and communicated with the rubbish remover were present today and gave me oral evidence that is what they did and that is what it cost, I am prepared to accept their oral evidence and award them the amount of $500.00 It is clear that there was a lot of rubbish to be removed and that some of the items were large and not easily disposed of.

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 landlord provided the tribunal with evidence of the damage by providing photographs taken by the property manager, and both of the owners at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s insurer also completed a report which they gave me and a scope of works for the damage. The landlords have been paid out the balance of the works and are only seeking the insurance excess from the tenant. The insurance excess is for 9 rooms (Bedroom 1 and Kitchen were below excess). I am satisfied that for each of the rooms the landlord is claiming the excess had damage more than the cost of the excess. I am satisfied that the tenants damaged the property, by breaking windows and removing windowpanes, breaking windows so they would not close, multiple holes in the walls, poor repair work (plastering over holes and painting in undercoat only), multiple holes (stab marks) in at least 4 doors, so the doors had to be replaced. Removing cupboards from vanity, broken towel rails x2, damage to power points and light fittings, and red staining on the carpet.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I am also satisfied that after the tenancy ended that the tenants continued to access the property through the broken window or the door. The neighbours would alert the landlord to the lights being on at the property. The landlord called the police, they told me that they understood it was the tenants son who was at the property and given a warning. The landlord claimed the cost of rekeying the front door, they said that they had to do that as they were unsure if the tenant had copied the key. I consider that it is reasonable in the circumstances and allow the cost of the lock replacement in the front door.
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.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5049469 — net $3,437.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Repairs: Insurance excesses damage x9	$4,950.00	Repairs: Insurance excesses damage x9
Rubbish removal	$500.00	Rubbish removal
Lock/key replacement	$280.00	Lock/key replacement
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,437.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,437.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Michelle De Thierry must pay [The landlord/s] $3,437.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The landlord’s claim for decontamination costs and the costs of testing for methamphetamine are not proven and dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended todays in person hearing. The tenant did not attend.
The landlord has applied for: a. The costs of testing for methamphetamine contamination. b. Insurance excesses x9 @$550 each for damage to the property. c. Costs of rekeying the front door d. Costs of rubbish removal $500.00 e. The filing fee
This was a tenancy of 3.5 years. The landlord says that during the tenancy they had trouble obtaining access to the property to do repairs, maintenance or inspections. They say that they would give notice and when they would turn up the tenant would often deny them access. The landlord and the owner said that the tenants would be aggressive and threatening to them. Whilst the property manager had a spare key she did not feel safe using it, because of the aggressiveness that had been shown to her by the tenant and that the tenant at some stages had a large dog at the property which was not authorised.
At the beginning of the tenancy the landlord had the property tested for methamphetamine contamination. The composite tests shown no presence of methamphetamine. When the new property managers took over in 2021, they had the property tested again and once again the results showed no presence of methamphetamine.
The landlord had the property retested on the 21 June 2024, after they had been to the property. They suspected methamphetamine use due to the condition of the property and some suspicious items – burnt tin foil patches found at the property.
The first tests that were completed showed small levels of methamphetamine at the property in composite tests of 0.22 μg or a theoretical maximum of 2.2 μg.
Whilst this was an increase from the composite testing in 2020 and 2021, I am not satisfied that it proves on the balance of probabilities that the tenant or her invitees used methamphetamine at the property during the tenancy because: a. It was not clear if the areas tested in 2024 were in exactly the same or similar areas as those completed in 2020 or 2021. In previous cases before me I have received evidence that unless the testing spots are in near identical places that they cannot be directly comparable. The increase in the presence of methamphetamine is not significant statistically (in other words it is only a minor increase) and therefore it may be attributable to where the samples were taken or how the samples were taken. b. The discreet tests were only taken in 2024. As no discreet sampling occurred in 2020 or 2021 it is impossible for me to know where any alleged use may have occurred. c. The person who completed the assessment report in 2024 wrote: “These levels are consistent with minor consumption and may be historic in nature. We do not believe the property has an underlying methamphetamine issue.” It is clear that the report writer could not accurately assess when the methamphetamine use may have occurred. d. The items found at the property, whilst suspicious, were not tested for methamphetamine residue.

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 leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish.
The landlord provided photographs taken at the final inspection on the 7 June 2024. Those photographs show a considerable amount of rubbish and tenant’s belongings left behind. None of the belongings appear to have any value.
The landlord removed some of the rubbish themselves and hired a person off market place to remove the rest. They say that they paid $500-$550 in cash.
Usually the Tribunal would expect to see invoices or receipts for such payments, but given the landlord who did that work and communicated with the rubbish remover were present today and gave me oral evidence that is what they did and that is what it cost, I am prepared to accept their oral evidence and award them the amount of $500.00 It is clear that there was a lot of rubbish to be removed and that some of the items were large and not easily disposed of.

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 landlord provided the tribunal with evidence of the damage by providing photographs taken by the property manager, and both of the owners at the end of the tenancy. The landlord’s insurer also completed a report which they gave me and a scope of works for the damage. The landlords have been paid out the balance of the works and are only seeking the insurance excess from the tenant. The insurance excess is for 9 rooms (Bedroom 1 and Kitchen were below excess). I am satisfied that for each of the rooms the landlord is claiming the excess had damage more than the cost of the excess. I am satisfied that the tenants damaged the property, by breaking windows and removing windowpanes, breaking windows so they would not close, multiple holes in the walls, poor repair work (plastering over holes and painting in undercoat only), multiple holes (stab marks) in at least 4 doors, so the doors had to be replaced. Removing cupboards from vanity, broken towel rails x2, damage to power points and light fittings, and red staining on the carpet.
The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage.
The amounts ordered are proved.
I am also satisfied that after the tenancy ended that the tenants continued to access the property through the broken window or the door. The neighbours would alert the landlord to the lights being on at the property. The landlord called the police, they told me that they understood it was the tenants son who was at the property and given a warning. The landlord claimed the cost of rekeying the front door, they said that they had to do that as they were unsure if the tenant had copied the key. I consider that it is reasonable in the circumstances and allow the cost of the lock replacement in the front door.
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.
Because [The landlord/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5049469 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5049469 — 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