What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5090689 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 5090689?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $136.85 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,671.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Re-Glazing Of Front Door: $280.60 awarded to landlord; Replace Mat: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $310.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5090689?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5090689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11698899-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5090689 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 5090689?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $136.85 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,671.43 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $200.00 awarded to landlord; Re-Glazing Of Front Door: $280.60 awarded to landlord; Replace Mat: $80.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $310.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5090689?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5090689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11698899-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5090689 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5090689 — net $3,905.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 October 2024	$1,671.43	8. [The landlord/s]’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,671.43 to 15 October
Repairs: (insurance excesses) as detailed below	$2,500.00	Repairs: (insurance excesses) as detailed below
Repairs: Damage to front door frame	$200.00	Repairs: Damage to front door frame
Repairs: Re-glazing of front door	$280.60	Repairs: Re-glazing of front door
Replace mat	$80.00	Replace mat
Lock/key replacement	$136.85	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$310.00	Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages - failure to quit premises	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - failure to quit premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,905.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,905.88

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

Background

I set out the background to the landlord’s application in the adjournment order dated 28 February 2025.
As set out in that order, the hearing on 28 February was adjourned because Ms Craft had not received notice. Although Ms Craft participated in that hearing by phone to the best of her ability, I noted in the Order that it would be unjust to conclude without giving Ms Craft an opportunity to present relevant evidence and participate in a “face-to-face” hearing.
The face-to-face hearing was scheduled to take place at the [Event location suppressed] today, 9 April 2025 at 9.30am. Notice of hearing was sent to both parties.
[The landlord/s] appeared at the hearing today. There was no appearance by Ms Craft. The Registrar attempted to contact Ms Craft by phone several times, in case there had been a misunderstanding. Ms Craft did not answer those calls. Ms Craft had not requested an adjournment or indicated that she would be unable to attend the hearing today.
I am satisfied that Ms Craft was given all reasonable opportunity to participate in the hearing, and the hearing proceeded in her absence. 1 Rent arrears
Ms Craft was evicted on 15 October 2024. She remained liable to pay rent to that date.
[The landlord/s] allowed Ms Craft to return to the property the next day to retrieve some belongings.
[The landlord/s]’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,671.43 to 15 October 2024. Damage
Tenants are liable for damage to the premises that is caused intentionally or carelessly by themselves or by anyone who is at the premises with their consent. 2
[The landlord/s]’s evidence shows that there was damage throughout the house during this tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The damage includes: 1 Section 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 49B RTA a. Broken glass pane in front door. b. Broken frame on front door. c. Holes in walls in bedrooms and hallway. Some of the damage was partially repaired by the tenant. d. Damage to kitchen bench (two large chips). e. Damaged doors. f. Dirty and damaged floor mat.
Some of the damage was covered by the landlord’s insurance. The insurer applied an excess of $500 per room. [The landlord/s] claim seeks five insurance excesses ($2500) plus the cost of repairs not covered by insurance (sub-excess) – repairs to front door and re-glazing, and replacement of mat.
[The landlord/s] provided photographs showing the damage to the master bedroom, kitchen and lounge, bathroom, hallway, and small bedroom. There is careless / intentional damage to all of those areas, and it is obvious that the cost of repairs significantly exceeds $500 per room. This is also supported by information from the landlord’s insurer. Therefore, this part of the claim is proven.
[The landlord/s] provided photographs showing the ‘boarded up’ broken pane in the front door and the large crack in the wooden frame of the front door. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. In the absence of any other evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the damage was the result of a careless or intentional action. The cost of repairs is proven.
[The landlord/s] provided a photograph of the small rug. The rug is damaged and dirty. The extent of damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The cost of replacing the rug is proven. Methamphetamine
The claim seeks de-contamination costs and exemplary damages for methamphetamine.
As indicated in the adjournment order, [the landlord/s] has the burden of proof to establish that methamphetamine use occurred during the period of this tenancy.
There was no testing done at the start of this tenancy.
My finding is that it is not proven that methamphetamine use occurred during this tenancy, and this part of the landlord’s application is dismissed. End of tenancy costs and exemplary damages
The application seeks bailiff costs, change of locks, rubbish removal, and exemplary damages for failure to quit the premises.
[The landlord/s] issued a 63-day notice to terminate the tenancy on 28 September 2024. Ms Craft disputed the notice.
[The landlord/s] brought a Tenancy Tribunal application to confirm that the notice was valid and effective. On 1 September 2024, the Tribunal made an order confirming that the notice was valid and effective, and that the tenancy would end on 28 September 2024. 3
Ms Craft failed to vacate on 28 September 2024.
[The landlord/s] arranged for a bailiff to enforce the possession order that the Tribunal made on 1 September.
The bailiff cost is added to the tenant’s debt at the time of enforcement.
Ms Craft is liable for the change of locks cost. Change of locks is standard in an eviction process, and it is a direct consequence of the tenant failing to leave the premises when they were legally required to.
Tenants must remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. [The landlord/s] photographs show that Ms Craft left some rubbish behind. The cost of disposing of that rubbish is proven.
Tenants must leave the premises at the end of the tenancy. 4 Failure to do so, without reasonable excuse, is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 can apply.
Not having another property move into is not considered to be a “reasonable excuse” for failing to leave at the end of the tenancy.
I was not provided with any explanation for the tenant’s failure to quit the premises at the end of the tenancy. The Tenancy Tribunal order from 1 September made it very clear that the landlord’s termination notice stood, and that the tenancy would end on 28 September 2024.
Therefore I find that Ms Craft’s failure to vacate on 28 September was an unlawful act, and exemplary damages apply.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and 3 Landlord v Craft [2024] NZTT 4945726 4 Section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA d. The public interest.
In this instance: a. I have limited information about Ms Craft’s intentions. b. The impact on [the landlord/s] was significant. Ms Craft’s failure to vacate caused [the landlord/s] stress and inconvenience as well as costs. c. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that tenants meet their duty to leave the premises at the end of the tenancy.
Having regard to these factors, I will award exemplary damages of $1,000.00. Other exemplary damages claims
In the previous order I noted that many of [the landlord/s] exemplary damages claims could not be considered. The claims that had an arguable legal basis were for the tenant failing to vacate, methamphetamine use, and refusal to allow access for an inspection.
The failure to vacate and methamphetamine claims are addressed above. The remaining exemplary damages claim is for refusal to allow access.
It is an unlawful act for a tenant to refuse (without reasonable excuse) to allow the landlord to enter the premises in circumstances where the landlord has a legal right to enter. 5 Exemplary damages of up to $1,500 can apply.
Landlords have a right to enter the premises in certain limited circumstances. One of those is for the purpose of inspecting the premises, provided that the landlord gives the tenant at least 48 hours’ notice of the inspection.
On 19 July 2024, [the landlord/s] sent Ms Craft an email giving notice of an inspection to take place at 10am on Wednesday 24 July.
[The landlord/s] said that she visited the property on Tuesday 23 July and reminded Ms Craft about the inspection to take place the next day. Ms Craft told her that she would not let [the landlord/s] do the inspection.
[The landlord/s] provided me with a very brief video recording of part of her conversation with Ms Craft that day. Ms Craft was seated on the outside steps. The video recording begins part way through a conversation. [The landlord/s] can be heard saying “...to actually do an inspection. Can I come?”. Ms Craft replies “you don’t have the right”.
The video is only 7 seconds long, and I do not know what was said before the recorded part of the conversation. 5 Section 48(4)(b) RTA
Given that [the landlord/s] arrived the day before the inspection that she had given notice for, Ms Craft was, of course, entitled to refuse [the landlord/s] entry if she attempted to enter on that day.
Ms Craft was not entitled to refuse to allow [the landlord/s] to do any inspections at all.
I will not make an award of exemplary damages given that: a. The only proven refusal of entry occurred at a time when [the landlord/s] did not have a legal right to enter. b. The video recording is too brief and out of context to be evidence that Ms Craft made a blanket refusal to allow [the landlord/s] to enter the premises in any circumstances. Bond, filing fee, name suppression
The proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.
The landlord was substantially successful in this application. The landlord’s request for name suppression is granted. 6 I will award the landlord the filing fee for the application. 7

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5090689 — net $3,905.88 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 15 October 2024	$1,671.43	8. [The landlord/s]’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,671.43 to 15 October
Repairs: (insurance excesses) as detailed below	$2,500.00	Repairs: (insurance excesses) as detailed below
Repairs: Damage to front door frame	$200.00	Repairs: Damage to front door frame
Repairs: Re-glazing of front door	$280.60	Repairs: Re-glazing of front door
Replace mat	$80.00	Replace mat
Lock/key replacement	$136.85	Lock/key replacement
Rubbish removal	$310.00	Rubbish removal
Exemplary damages - failure to quit premises	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages - failure to quit premises
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,905.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,905.88

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details. 2. 3.

Reasons

Background

I set out the background to the landlord’s application in the adjournment order dated 28 February 2025.
As set out in that order, the hearing on 28 February was adjourned because Ms Craft had not received notice. Although Ms Craft participated in that hearing by phone to the best of her ability, I noted in the Order that it would be unjust to conclude without giving Ms Craft an opportunity to present relevant evidence and participate in a “face-to-face” hearing.
The face-to-face hearing was scheduled to take place at the [Event location suppressed] today, 9 April 2025 at 9.30am. Notice of hearing was sent to both parties.
[The landlord/s] appeared at the hearing today. There was no appearance by Ms Craft. The Registrar attempted to contact Ms Craft by phone several times, in case there had been a misunderstanding. Ms Craft did not answer those calls. Ms Craft had not requested an adjournment or indicated that she would be unable to attend the hearing today.
I am satisfied that Ms Craft was given all reasonable opportunity to participate in the hearing, and the hearing proceeded in her absence. 1 Rent arrears
Ms Craft was evicted on 15 October 2024. She remained liable to pay rent to that date.
[The landlord/s] allowed Ms Craft to return to the property the next day to retrieve some belongings.
[The landlord/s]’s rent record establishes rent arrears of $1,671.43 to 15 October 2024. Damage
Tenants are liable for damage to the premises that is caused intentionally or carelessly by themselves or by anyone who is at the premises with their consent. 2
[The landlord/s]’s evidence shows that there was damage throughout the house during this tenancy. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The damage includes: 1 Section 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 2 Section 49B RTA a. Broken glass pane in front door. b. Broken frame on front door. c. Holes in walls in bedrooms and hallway. Some of the damage was partially repaired by the tenant. d. Damage to kitchen bench (two large chips). e. Damaged doors. f. Dirty and damaged floor mat.
Some of the damage was covered by the landlord’s insurance. The insurer applied an excess of $500 per room. [The landlord/s] claim seeks five insurance excesses ($2500) plus the cost of repairs not covered by insurance (sub-excess) – repairs to front door and re-glazing, and replacement of mat.
[The landlord/s] provided photographs showing the damage to the master bedroom, kitchen and lounge, bathroom, hallway, and small bedroom. There is careless / intentional damage to all of those areas, and it is obvious that the cost of repairs significantly exceeds $500 per room. This is also supported by information from the landlord’s insurer. Therefore, this part of the claim is proven.
[The landlord/s] provided photographs showing the ‘boarded up’ broken pane in the front door and the large crack in the wooden frame of the front door. The damage is beyond fair wear and tear. In the absence of any other evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the damage was the result of a careless or intentional action. The cost of repairs is proven.
[The landlord/s] provided a photograph of the small rug. The rug is damaged and dirty. The extent of damage is beyond fair wear and tear. The cost of replacing the rug is proven. Methamphetamine
The claim seeks de-contamination costs and exemplary damages for methamphetamine.
As indicated in the adjournment order, [the landlord/s] has the burden of proof to establish that methamphetamine use occurred during the period of this tenancy.
There was no testing done at the start of this tenancy.
My finding is that it is not proven that methamphetamine use occurred during this tenancy, and this part of the landlord’s application is dismissed. End of tenancy costs and exemplary damages
The application seeks bailiff costs, change of locks, rubbish removal, and exemplary damages for failure to quit the premises.
[The landlord/s] issued a 63-day notice to terminate the tenancy on 28 September 2024. Ms Craft disputed the notice.
[The landlord/s] brought a Tenancy Tribunal application to confirm that the notice was valid and effective. On 1 September 2024, the Tribunal made an order confirming that the notice was valid and effective, and that the tenancy would end on 28 September 2024. 3
Ms Craft failed to vacate on 28 September 2024.
[The landlord/s] arranged for a bailiff to enforce the possession order that the Tribunal made on 1 September.
The bailiff cost is added to the tenant’s debt at the time of enforcement.
Ms Craft is liable for the change of locks cost. Change of locks is standard in an eviction process, and it is a direct consequence of the tenant failing to leave the premises when they were legally required to.
Tenants must remove all rubbish at the end of the tenancy. [The landlord/s] photographs show that Ms Craft left some rubbish behind. The cost of disposing of that rubbish is proven.
Tenants must leave the premises at the end of the tenancy. 4 Failure to do so, without reasonable excuse, is an unlawful act. Exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 can apply.
Not having another property move into is not considered to be a “reasonable excuse” for failing to leave at the end of the tenancy.
I was not provided with any explanation for the tenant’s failure to quit the premises at the end of the tenancy. The Tenancy Tribunal order from 1 September made it very clear that the landlord’s termination notice stood, and that the tenancy would end on 28 September 2024.
Therefore I find that Ms Craft’s failure to vacate on 28 September was an unlawful act, and exemplary damages apply.
In considering an award of exemplary damages, the Tribunal must have regard to: a. The intention of the person who committed the unlawful act; and b. The effect of the unlawful act; and c. The interests of the person against whom the act was committed; and 3 Landlord v Craft [2024] NZTT 4945726 4 Section 40(1)(e)(i) RTA d. The public interest.
In this instance: a. I have limited information about Ms Craft’s intentions. b. The impact on [the landlord/s] was significant. Ms Craft’s failure to vacate caused [the landlord/s] stress and inconvenience as well as costs. c. There is a legitimate public interest in ensuring that tenants meet their duty to leave the premises at the end of the tenancy.
Having regard to these factors, I will award exemplary damages of $1,000.00. Other exemplary damages claims
In the previous order I noted that many of [the landlord/s] exemplary damages claims could not be considered. The claims that had an arguable legal basis were for the tenant failing to vacate, methamphetamine use, and refusal to allow access for an inspection.
The failure to vacate and methamphetamine claims are addressed above. The remaining exemplary damages claim is for refusal to allow access.
It is an unlawful act for a tenant to refuse (without reasonable excuse) to allow the landlord to enter the premises in circumstances where the landlord has a legal right to enter. 5 Exemplary damages of up to $1,500 can apply.
Landlords have a right to enter the premises in certain limited circumstances. One of those is for the purpose of inspecting the premises, provided that the landlord gives the tenant at least 48 hours’ notice of the inspection.
On 19 July 2024, [the landlord/s] sent Ms Craft an email giving notice of an inspection to take place at 10am on Wednesday 24 July.
[The landlord/s] said that she visited the property on Tuesday 23 July and reminded Ms Craft about the inspection to take place the next day. Ms Craft told her that she would not let [the landlord/s] do the inspection.
[The landlord/s] provided me with a very brief video recording of part of her conversation with Ms Craft that day. Ms Craft was seated on the outside steps. The video recording begins part way through a conversation. [The landlord/s] can be heard saying “...to actually do an inspection. Can I come?”. Ms Craft replies “you don’t have the right”.
The video is only 7 seconds long, and I do not know what was said before the recorded part of the conversation. 5 Section 48(4)(b) RTA
Given that [the landlord/s] arrived the day before the inspection that she had given notice for, Ms Craft was, of course, entitled to refuse [the landlord/s] entry if she attempted to enter on that day.
Ms Craft was not entitled to refuse to allow [the landlord/s] to do any inspections at all.
I will not make an award of exemplary damages given that: a. The only proven refusal of entry occurred at a time when [the landlord/s] did not have a legal right to enter. b. The video recording is too brief and out of context to be evidence that Ms Craft made a blanket refusal to allow [the landlord/s] to enter the premises in any circumstances. Bond, filing fee, name suppression
The proven claim exceeds the amount of the bond. The bond will be released to the landlord.
The landlord was substantially successful in this application. The landlord’s request for name suppression is granted. 6 I will award the landlord the filing fee for the application. 7

Tenancy Tribunal case 5090689 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5090689 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions