Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5111868 — Property damage at 22A Hull Street, South Hill, Oamaru 9400
Decided 29 Jun 2025 · Published 29 Jun 2025 · Application 5111868
- Property damage
- Cleanliness
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
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 tenant’s application is dismissed.
- Melody Nicol must pay the landlord $15,403.33 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 17 December 2024 under application [redacted].
- The Bond Centre must pay $80 bond to the landlord. This is the balance of the bond remaining after the order made on 17 December 2024. Credit for the full bond was given in that order but the payment was $80 short.
- 00 Total award$15,403.33 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$15,403.33
Reasons
- Only the landlord attended the hearing. Calls made at the time of the hearing to the mobile telephone numbers provided by the tenant went to voicemail.
- Because the tenant did not attend the hearing, her application is dismissed. I note that it is difficult to see any legal basis for the claims she was making in her application.
- The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. Rent
- The tenancy ended on 17 December 2024 by order of the Tribunal. The tenant did not vacate until she was evicted on 15 January 2025. The landlord has been awarded rent arrears to 17 December and it is entitled to rent for the period 18 December 2024 to 15 January 2025. That amounts to $1,988.57 and so I have awarded that. Other Claims Law
- 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.
- The tenant must not carelessly or intentionally damage 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.
- 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).
- 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. Claims Other Than Damage
- The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. There was a very substantial quantity of rubbish left at the premises and the premises were left extremely untidy and unclean.
- Given the condition that the premises were left in and the tenant’s behaviour generally, including her refusal to vacate the premises when she was ordered to do so, the landlord changed the locks. I find that it was reasonable to do so.
- The amounts awarded for cleaning, rubbish removal and lock changing were proved by the production of photographs and invoices. I note that the landlord’s owner did a substantial amount of the work himself, including removing and dumping the rubbish and I have awarded compensation for his time at the rate of $40 per hour. That is a higher rate that the Tribunal ordinarily awards to landlords in this situation, but the landlord in this case carried out work that would normally by done by a skilled contractor, and there has been a considerable saving as a result.
- The landlord’s work included replacing the locks, repairing extensive damage, painting, replacing vinyl, garden work and tiling.
- Plumbing wastes were missing from the premises.
- I have awarded the warrant of possession fee for ease of enforcement.
- On 17 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy, for rent arrears. That order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes. Damage
- There was extensive damage to the premises during the tenancy. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for it. At the previous hearing, the tenant admitted responsibility for much of the damage.
- Some damage was plainly intentional, including the damage to the kitchen benchtop, which was heavily gouged, and extensive impact and other damage to walls.
- The damage included – • Damage to the wood burner due to the tenant burning coal. • Broken windows and one window completely removed. • A cooker replaced with an unsuitable one. • Carpet so stained and burned that it had to be replaced. • Curtains damaged and needing to be replaced.
- There has been some allowance for betterment. 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, the Tribunal considers the age and condition of the damaged item at the start of the tenancy and its likely useful lifespan.
- The cost of replacing carpet and curtains has been reduced by 50% due to their age and normal durability.
- The amounts awarded were proved by the production of photographs and invoices and by evidence given on behalf of the landlord. Insurance
- The premises were insured for accidental damage with an excess of $1,000. The only single item damaged that has attracted an award of more than $1,000 is the damage to the kitchen bench, although I note that the damage to it may well have occurred over time. That damage was intentional and so insurance is not a consideration. Exemplary Damages
- A tenant must vacate the premises on the termination of the tenancy.
- Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
- The tenant did not vacate the premises when required to do so on 17 December and remained in the premises until the eviction date. I find she thereby committed an unlawful act.
- 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.
- I appreciate that the tenant would not have been able to vacate the premises immediately after the order, but she should have vacated as soon as possible after that. Apart from the rent arrears, from the damage to the premises and their condition generally it should have been obvious to the tenant that it was untenable for the tenancy to continue.
- The landlord was hoping to be able to carry out the work needed to remediate the premises over the holiday period and because that was not possible due to the tenant’s occupation, he was required to work at night and at weekends after the tenant was evicted.
- The landlord was thereby put to considerable inconvenience on top of the expense and loss of rent that inevitably follows a tenancy that ends in this way.
- I find, therefore, that a substantial award of exemplary damages is required, and I award $1,000.
- The landlord also sought exemplary damages because there were smoke alarms missing from the premises at the end of the tenancy. If the tenant removed the smoke alarms during the tenancy, that is interference with the means of escape in the case of fire, which is an unlawful act.
- The landlord candidly admitted that he did not see the smoke alarms missing during the tenancy. It is, therefore, possible that they were removed when the tenant vacated the premises. For that reason, I decline to find that there was an unlawful act or that there should be an award of exemplary damages. Filing Fee
- The landlord has succeeded and so I awarded the filing fee. Suppression
- For the same reason I have granted the landlord’s request for name suppression.