How much money was awarded in case 5107155?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5107155?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5107155?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11524895-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5107155?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5107155?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5107155?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11524895-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5107155 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5107155 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Tribunal directs that notice be treated as being served on the tenant on 17 February 2025 by way of the email sent to the tenant’s recorded email address for service.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [“Landlord”] immediately.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing today. Service
The application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy so the usual service rules no longer apply.
The application must be served either personally on the tenant, on someone over the age of 16 living at address where the tenant now lives, or by post to an address provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made. See section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The application has not been served in accordance with these requirements.
If the landlord cannot locate the tenant, despite making all reasonable efforts to do so, the Tribunal may make a direction that the application be treated as served if steps have been taken that have brought or are likely to bring the notice or other documents to the attention of the other party. Alternatively, the Tribunal may direct that service be dispensed with. See section 91B Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
In this case the tenants were removed from the property by the Police following a raid of the premises in September 2024.
The landlord provided records that confirmed that she attempted to contact the tenant by phone and WeChat following the incident but had no success. The WeChat records show previous communication with the tenant on that address and then no response after the Police raid.
The tenancy agreement signed by the named tenant on 25 February 2024 records an email address for the tenant as an address for service.
The case file records that the tenant was sent notice of the proceedings and of today’s hearing by email to the recorded email address for service. The tenant has not attended today.
The landlord advised that the Police informed her that the identification provided for the tenant was false.
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to locate the tenant and direct that the notice be treated as being served on the tenant by way of the email sent to the recorded email address for service on 17 February 2025. Landlord application
The landlord advised today that she is seeking refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy as compensation towards extensive damage caused at the premises.

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.
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: The premises were used to cultivate cannabis which was discovered by the landlord after notification from the Police following a raid at the premises. There was extensive damage to the premises including large holes cut in to walls and ceilings throughout and damage to the floor. The tenant provided photographs of the damage and a copy of the Police report. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that the damage was intentionally caused.
The amounts ordered are proved. The landlord has provided a copy of communication from the insurer advising that there is no policy cover for intentional damage. The landlord has also provided a copy of an invoice for the repairs which exceeds the amount of the bond. The landlord is only seeking to recover the bond today and this is ordered accordingly. Suppression
The landlord is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order 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 1986. The landlord has been wholly successful; therefore, suppression of the landlord details is ordered as sought.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

The Tribunal directs that notice be treated as being served on the tenant on 17 February 2025 by way of the email sent to the tenant’s recorded email address for service.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,200.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [“Landlord”] immediately.

Reasons

Only the applicant landlord attended the hearing today. Service

The application was filed more than two months after the end of the tenancy so the usual service rules no longer apply.

The application must be served either personally on the tenant, on someone over the age of 16 living at address where the tenant now lives, or by post to an address provided by the tenant within two months before the application was made. See section 91A(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The application has not been served in accordance with these requirements.

If the landlord cannot locate the tenant, despite making all reasonable efforts to do so, the Tribunal may make a direction that the application be treated as served if steps have been taken that have brought or are likely to bring the notice or other documents to the attention of the other party. Alternatively, the Tribunal may direct that service be dispensed with. See section 91B Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

In this case the tenants were removed from the property by the Police following a raid of the premises in September 2024.

The landlord provided records that confirmed that she attempted to contact the tenant by phone and WeChat following the incident but had no success. The WeChat records show previous communication with the tenant on that address and then no response after the Police raid.

The tenancy agreement signed by the named tenant on 25 February 2024 records an email address for the tenant as an address for service.

The case file records that the tenant was sent notice of the proceedings and of today’s hearing by email to the recorded email address for service. The tenant has not attended today.

The landlord advised that the Police informed her that the identification provided for the tenant was false.

Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that all reasonable efforts have been made to locate the tenant and direct that the notice be treated as being served on the tenant by way of the email sent to the recorded email address for service on 17 February 2025. Landlord application

The landlord advised today that she is seeking refund of the bond following the end of the tenancy as compensation towards extensive damage caused at the premises.

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.

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: The premises were used to cultivate cannabis which was discovered by the landlord after notification from the Police following a raid at the premises. There was extensive damage to the premises including large holes cut in to walls and ceilings throughout and damage to the floor. The tenant provided photographs of the damage and a copy of the Police report. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. I find that the damage was intentionally caused.

The amounts ordered are proved. The landlord has provided a copy of communication from the insurer advising that there is no policy cover for intentional damage. The landlord has also provided a copy of an invoice for the repairs which exceeds the amount of the bond. The landlord is only seeking to recover the bond today and this is ordered accordingly. Suppression

The landlord is seeking suppression of identifying details in any publication of this order. If a party has wholly or substantially succeeded in the proceedings the Tribunal must make the order 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 1986. The landlord has been wholly successful; therefore, suppression of the landlord details is ordered as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5107155 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5107155 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions